Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T01:44:12Z

WilliamB1: /* Comment */

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center><center>''Note:User participation here will be exempt from the 90/10 rule, however there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for participating. I will however do whatever I can to help if that were to happen.''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

(To make the vote count accurate, I'm adding some votes that have been cast [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=895426&oldid=895420 elsewhere]. I invite anyone I've listed to add a comment by their name. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(I have removed those votes. If people want to add their names then they can do so themselves. It is highly presumptuous for you to add someone else's name to this list. They may not wish to take part in this vote at all. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(Note also: Only actual signed votes by actual registered users carry any weight. Statements that some unidentified person has privately supported one's position by email carry no weight. Note also that sockpuppets are strictly forbidden at Conservapedia, and that "checkuser" is used to discover violations. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

==Yea==

#Yea. User:RobSmith's plans will not be good for this website. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:10, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. I never had a problem with RobS until he went after [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:Conservative]] is the lifeblood of this site. Without him, CP dies. [[Essay: User:Conservative, what is best in life?|What is best in life?]] Getting rid of RobS. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

==Nay==

#I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should lose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Obvious '''nay''' for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the ''Community Portal'') at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I vote no. I haven't been around in quite some time, but I used to be a fairly active user (with block rights etc) and left in part because of some of the same issues RobS has addressed. I too believe these "reforms" are necessary for the site to move forward, and may return to active participation if something along these lines is enacted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) (editing while traveling, please don't ban me for the IP change!) (PS: can some sysop fix the spelling of this page?)
#Obvious '''nay''', for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site. If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta. Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed? [[User:IanR|IanR]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#As strong of a '''nay''' as one could possibly nay [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay, in the strongest possible terms. If those in power are held to the rules that others must follow then a just society will always emerge. If, however, those in authority are allowed to run rampage unchecked, then [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327929 this] is the inevitable result. Chaos, corruption and an organisation that can no longer function.--[[User:IeuanApGriffith|IeuanApGriffith]] 15:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only thing that will save this wiki as a conservative sight on the internet is Robs's proposals. Lose them and this wiki will go the way TK wanted. Rein in conservative and karajou and this project may JUST be saved. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS is a reasonable fellow and is only trying to improve the wiki. He is the only sysop campaigning in the face of User:conservative's abusive habits of shutting down discussion by
#*locking talk pages (including his own)
#*deleting and using oversight on talk pages to remove criticism of him
#*blocking people that disagree with him
#:As a result of this, User:conservative has become quite upset at being called out and instead of changing his ways is lashing out at RobS- which normally works fine except that RobS is also a sysop and thus can unblock himself and restore commentary. Worst of all RobS is capable of committing the horrific crime of posting on User:conservative's talk page.
#:It is in Conservapedia's best interests to let Rob keep his rights and march by his side as he strives to improve the community and its interactions.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is working to improve the site (while keeping its conservative POV), Conservative to protect his petty fiefdom. [[User:GuidoF|Guy]][[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]] 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This has gone too far. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 16:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. If Rob were to lose his rights it would be a victory for the parodists and the bullies. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#There needs to be some sysop accountability. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Definitely not. RobS: Reasonable sysop who is trying to bring some accountability and respect. Conserative: An internet bully, who populates the site with substandard quote mined insults written in crude inelegant language. --[[User:Orsay|Orsay]] 17:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I know I said I wouldn't edit this site again following its exploitation of recent events, but for this purpose I will briefly renege on that. RobSmith is the only sysop who is making a concerted effort to improve this site by implementing a set of coherent policies. His opponents are those who have most frequently abused their rights as sysops. Most notable among these is User: Conservative, whose numerous talk page comments and 'essays' are, if not parody, then a genuine cause for concern, and I would in all seriousness advise his fellow sysops to discretely speak with this user regarding this matter. The other vocal opponent of RobSmith is FergusE, who is very clearly a parodist here only to stir things up. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 18:41, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I think it is wrong for one sysop to openly campaign against another, especially when it is based on the other only wanting to help the site. As conservatives we should expect accountability and transparency from those who run the site in the same way that we expect it of our government. The wielding of anonymous and unaccountable power is what one expects from Marxists. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. As far as I can see, Rob hasn't done anything to merit losing his Sysop rights. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This site needs more like Rob. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only people who actually support Conservative's articles and "essays" are trolls, vandals, and sockpuppets. Conservative has truly contributed NOTHING of value or quality to the site, and what little he has contributed does nothing but attract vandals and parodists. Conversely, RobS wants to hold sysops accountable for their actions and fix the ban policies. Of course Conservative wants RobS to lose his sysop rights, otherwise Conservative couldn't continue to undermine this site from within with his awful essays and poorly researched, shoddy articles. Conservative only cares about his own power, even if that means turning this site into a caricature of conservatism and his own personal blog/echo chamber.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:23, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Comment ==
[[User:Conservative]] brings a great deal of traffic and quality publicity to this site. In my opinion, that is too important to risk over a silly squabble. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Running naked onto a baseball field brings a lot of attention, too. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
===A slightly more pressing comment===
So.. a bunch of you think that the power structure here is broken and corrupt... and even a few think andy is working against you all... So what do you expect to get done here? Somehow convince Synops that you say abuse power to not do so anymore cause a bunch of people made a vote? I'm just curious, because you know, from your own point of view your wasting time. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:We're just trying to make a point before User:Conservative inevitably wins. This is a Charge of the Light Brigade..."Into the valley of ban rode the 600..." [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::The nay voters are just making it easy for the sysops to know who to block when the dust settles. We don't need disloyal users here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::We also don't need socks, of which many users (including myself) suspect you are. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you seen my [[Talk:Main Page#Conservapedia Android App|Android app?]] or my [[Portal:Essays|essay portal]]? Why would a sock puppet make contributions like that? Maybe you're a sock. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Simple reasoning here, FergusE...if I were a sock '''I would be agreeing with the current direction of the site, not disagreeing with it.''' There is no benefit to dissenting at Conservapedia. Most socks follow your path, where they constantly parrot what the other sysops are saying to create an illusion of more support for that sysop's preferred positions than actually exists. As for the app and the portal, if someone went through the effort to create socks (like many sysops here) and log in and out of the site to respond on numerous issues than I don;t find it unreasonable that they'd have their sock take credit for other work on the site. If that sock got promoted, then the person behind it would effectively have 2 votes in site matters, and more power. Pretty simple really. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Check the description on the App's page again. And check the edit history of the portal. It's me. This is a typical tactic: discredit my position by discrediting me. Did you ever stop to think that maybe I really do support [[User:Conservative]]? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::It's rather easy to use an alias online, FergusE. I wouldn't doubt that a dedicated sysop with a sock would go through such effort. And to be honest with you, I did briefly think about the possibility that you do support him, but then it occurred to me that '''except for you and one other user, no one has spoken up publicly for User:Conservative.''' Not Karajou, not TerryH, not the two mystery sysops Conservative claims support him, no one. I just find it highly unlikely you are an independent user who is not a parodist. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou and TerryH have voiced their support for [[User:Conservative]] on other pages. Their votes were listed in the Yea section but were [[censor]]ed by User:RobS. I've offered my support and I'm now done here. You can believe what you want. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::But they haven't voiced their support here. It's like voting in a Presidential election- you can say whatever you want before election day but if you don't show up to the polls your vote won't count. If they really support Conservative they'd vote here. And I know you're not going, just like Conservative said he was "putting Conservapedia on the back burner" and then continued editing. Also, another reason why I think you're Conservative...the wikifying of various usernames and phrases in a debate or talk page comment is one of his traits. We're not dumb. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Andy Schlafly has yet to make a statement. No one thinks he's "working against us."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
-
::::::I was referring to comments people made when he removed checkuser from Rob--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:No, the vote won't magically fix anything. If the site can still be fixed, it's going to start with a long process of hammering out centralized and less vague rules, and of holding everybody to the same standards. Yes, even (*gasp*) the sysops.
:And that's just the thing - this is about policy and not about stripping Rob or Conservative of their powers. That's just the lazy way out. If Rob is thrown out, the policy reform is dead, and the community will continue at its usual low point. If Conservative is thrown out, somebody else will take his place because the system is still broken.
:Conservative pushed hard to get Rob thrown out by invoking a sort of ''ad populum'' argument with his "4 Sysops support me! Now 5 Sysops support me! Maybe soon 6 Sysops will support me!" posts on Andy's talk page. That's mob rule, and Rob simply demonstrated that this can go both ways. That's why we voted. It was never about the actual outcome, it was to show that Rob has plenty of support from the community and isn't the lone antagonist Conservative tried to paint him as.
:Maybe now we as a community, normal editors and sysops, can work together on the actual issues. CP won't turn into an evolutionist atheist liberal site (duh), but maybe it can turn into a site where new editors don't have to worry about being banhammered for violating some obscure rule such as "Reverting a sysop even once can get you blocked without warning!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

The above discussion reveals that many liberals have somehow infiltrated this good website. I recommend bans on the dissenters.--[[User:JacobReid|JacobReid]] 21:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:This website has become a collection of jokes masquerading as essays, or even, in some cases, actual mainspace articles. If Conservapedia has been reduced to a collection of 'fat jokes' and articles about flying animals, which are tolerated, if not perhaps actively encouraged, in a cynical drive for pageviews, then what is the point of this website at all? What do any of those things have to do with this website's original intention? [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

=== Move? ===
Should we maybe move this section to the talk page? Might be a better place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T01:42:37Z

WilliamB1: /* Comment */

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center><center>''Note:User participation here will be exempt from the 90/10 rule, however there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for participating. I will however do whatever I can to help if that were to happen.''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

(To make the vote count accurate, I'm adding some votes that have been cast [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=895426&oldid=895420 elsewhere]. I invite anyone I've listed to add a comment by their name. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(I have removed those votes. If people want to add their names then they can do so themselves. It is highly presumptuous for you to add someone else's name to this list. They may not wish to take part in this vote at all. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(Note also: Only actual signed votes by actual registered users carry any weight. Statements that some unidentified person has privately supported one's position by email carry no weight. Note also that sockpuppets are strictly forbidden at Conservapedia, and that "checkuser" is used to discover violations. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

==Yea==

#Yea. User:RobSmith's plans will not be good for this website. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:10, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. I never had a problem with RobS until he went after [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:Conservative]] is the lifeblood of this site. Without him, CP dies. [[Essay: User:Conservative, what is best in life?|What is best in life?]] Getting rid of RobS. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

==Nay==

#I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should lose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Obvious '''nay''' for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the ''Community Portal'') at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I vote no. I haven't been around in quite some time, but I used to be a fairly active user (with block rights etc) and left in part because of some of the same issues RobS has addressed. I too believe these "reforms" are necessary for the site to move forward, and may return to active participation if something along these lines is enacted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) (editing while traveling, please don't ban me for the IP change!) (PS: can some sysop fix the spelling of this page?)
#Obvious '''nay''', for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site. If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta. Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed? [[User:IanR|IanR]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#As strong of a '''nay''' as one could possibly nay [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay, in the strongest possible terms. If those in power are held to the rules that others must follow then a just society will always emerge. If, however, those in authority are allowed to run rampage unchecked, then [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327929 this] is the inevitable result. Chaos, corruption and an organisation that can no longer function.--[[User:IeuanApGriffith|IeuanApGriffith]] 15:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only thing that will save this wiki as a conservative sight on the internet is Robs's proposals. Lose them and this wiki will go the way TK wanted. Rein in conservative and karajou and this project may JUST be saved. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS is a reasonable fellow and is only trying to improve the wiki. He is the only sysop campaigning in the face of User:conservative's abusive habits of shutting down discussion by
#*locking talk pages (including his own)
#*deleting and using oversight on talk pages to remove criticism of him
#*blocking people that disagree with him
#:As a result of this, User:conservative has become quite upset at being called out and instead of changing his ways is lashing out at RobS- which normally works fine except that RobS is also a sysop and thus can unblock himself and restore commentary. Worst of all RobS is capable of committing the horrific crime of posting on User:conservative's talk page.
#:It is in Conservapedia's best interests to let Rob keep his rights and march by his side as he strives to improve the community and its interactions.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is working to improve the site (while keeping its conservative POV), Conservative to protect his petty fiefdom. [[User:GuidoF|Guy]][[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]] 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This has gone too far. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 16:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. If Rob were to lose his rights it would be a victory for the parodists and the bullies. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#There needs to be some sysop accountability. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Definitely not. RobS: Reasonable sysop who is trying to bring some accountability and respect. Conserative: An internet bully, who populates the site with substandard quote mined insults written in crude inelegant language. --[[User:Orsay|Orsay]] 17:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I know I said I wouldn't edit this site again following its exploitation of recent events, but for this purpose I will briefly renege on that. RobSmith is the only sysop who is making a concerted effort to improve this site by implementing a set of coherent policies. His opponents are those who have most frequently abused their rights as sysops. Most notable among these is User: Conservative, whose numerous talk page comments and 'essays' are, if not parody, then a genuine cause for concern, and I would in all seriousness advise his fellow sysops to discretely speak with this user regarding this matter. The other vocal opponent of RobSmith is FergusE, who is very clearly a parodist here only to stir things up. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 18:41, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I think it is wrong for one sysop to openly campaign against another, especially when it is based on the other only wanting to help the site. As conservatives we should expect accountability and transparency from those who run the site in the same way that we expect it of our government. The wielding of anonymous and unaccountable power is what one expects from Marxists. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. As far as I can see, Rob hasn't done anything to merit losing his Sysop rights. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This site needs more like Rob. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only people who actually support Conservative's articles and "essays" are trolls, vandals, and sockpuppets. Conservative has truly contributed NOTHING of value or quality to the site, and what little he has contributed does nothing but attract vandals and parodists. Conversely, RobS wants to hold sysops accountable for their actions and fix the ban policies. Of course Conservative wants RobS to lose his sysop rights, otherwise Conservative couldn't continue to undermine this site from within with his awful essays and poorly researched, shoddy articles. Conservative only cares about his own power, even if that means turning this site into a caricature of conservatism and his own personal blog/echo chamber.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:23, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Comment ==
[[User:Conservative]] brings a great deal of traffic and quality publicity to this site. In my opinion, that is too important to risk over a silly squabble. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Running naked onto a baseball field brings a lot of attention, too. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
===A slightly more pressing comment===
So.. a bunch of you think that the power structure here is broken and corrupt... and even a few think andy is working against you all... So what do you expect to get done here? Somehow convince Synops that you say abuse power to not do so anymore cause a bunch of people made a vote? I'm just curious, because you know, from your own point of view your wasting time. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:28, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:We're just trying to make a point before User:Conservative inevitably wins. This is a Charge of the Light Brigade..."Into the valley of ban rode the 600..." [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::The nay voters are just making it easy for the sysops to know who to block when the dust settles. We don't need disloyal users here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:49, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::We also don't need socks, of which many users (including myself) suspect you are. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you seen my [[Talk:Main Page#Conservapedia Android App|Android app?]] or my [[Portal:Essays|essay portal]]? Why would a sock puppet make contributions like that? Maybe you're a sock. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Simple reasoning here, FergusE...if I were a sock '''I would be agreeing with the current direction of the site, not disagreeing with it.''' There is no benefit to dissenting at Conservapedia. Most socks follow your path, where they constantly parrot what the other sysops are saying to create an illusion of more support for that sysop's preferred positions than actually exists. As for the app and the portal, if someone went through the effort to create socks (like many sysops here) and log in and out of the site to respond on numerous issues than I don;t find it unreasonable that they'd have their sock take credit for other work on the site. If that sock got promoted, then the person behind it would effectively have 2 votes in site matters, and more power. Pretty simple really. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Check the description on the App's page again. And check the edit history of the portal. It's me. This is a typical tactic: discredit my position by discrediting me. Did you ever stop to think that maybe I really do support [[User:Conservative]]? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::It's rather easy to use an alias online, FergusE. I wouldn't doubt that a dedicated sysop with a sock would go through such effort. And to be honest with you, I did briefly think about the possibility that you do support him, but then it occurred to me that '''except for you and one other user, no one has spoken up publicly for User:Conservative.''' Not Karajou, not TerryH, not the two mystery sysops Conservative claims support him, no one. I just find it highly unlikely you are an independent user who is not a parodist. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou and TerryH have voiced their support for [[User:Conservative]] on other pages. Their votes were listed in the Yea section but were [[censor]]ed by User:RobS. I've offered my support and I'm now done here. You can believe what you want. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::But they haven't voiced their support here. It's like voting in a Presidential election- you can say whatever you want before election day but if you don't show up to the polls your vote won't count. If they really support Conservative they'd vote here. And I know you're not going, just like Conservative said he was "putting Conservapedia on the back burner" and then continued editing. Also, another reason why I think you're Conservative...the wikifying of various usernames and phrases in a debate or talk page comment is one of his traits. We're not dumb. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 21:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Andy Schlafly has yet to make a statement. No one thinks he's "working against us."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 20:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
-
::::::I was referring to comments people made when he removed checkuser from Rob--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:No, the vote won't magically fix anything. If the site can still be fixed, it's going to start with a long process of hammering out centralized and less vague rules, and of holding everybody to the same standards. Yes, even (*gasp*) the sysops.
:And that's just the thing - this is about policy and not about stripping Rob or Conservative of their powers. That's just the lazy way out. If Rob is thrown out, the policy reform is dead, and the community will continue at its usual low point. If Conservative is thrown out, somebody else will take his place because the system is still broken.
:Conservative pushed hard to get Rob thrown out by invoking a sort of ''ad populum'' argument with his "4 Sysops support me! Now 5 Sysops support me! Maybe soon 6 Sysops will support me!" posts on Andy's talk page. That's mob rule, and Rob simply demonstrated that this can go both ways. That's why we voted. It was never about the actual outcome, it was to show that Rob has plenty of support from the community and isn't the lone antagonist Conservative tried to paint him as.
:Maybe now we as a community, normal editors and sysops, can work together on the actual issues. CP won't turn into an evolutionist atheist liberal site (duh), but maybe it can turn into a site where new editors don't have to worry about being banhammered for violating some obscure rule such as "Reverting a sysop even once can get you blocked without warning!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:02, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

The above discussion reveals that many liberals have somehow infiltrated this good website. I recommend bans on the dissenters.--[[User:JacobReid|JacobReid]] 21:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:Conservative has made a mockery of this site; it has become a parody, jokes masquerading as essays, or even, in some cases, actual mainspace articles. If Conservapedia has been reduced to a collection of 'fat jokes' and articles about flying animals, which are tolerated, if not perhaps actively encouraged, in a cynical drive for pageviews, then what is the point of this website at all? What do any of those things have to do with this website's original intention? [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

=== Move? ===
Should we maybe move this section to the talk page? Might be a better place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T22:47:07Z

WilliamB1: /* Nay */

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-07-31T22:41:09Z

WilliamB1:

Scotland

2011-07-22T23:03:45Z

WilliamB1:

{{Country
|name =''Scotland''
|map =Scotland-map.jpg
|flag =Flag of Scotland.png
|arms =Lion rampant.png
|capital =Edinburgh
|capital-raw =
|government =Devolved parliamentary democracy
|government-raw =
|language =[[English]], [[Gaelic]]
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =Alex Salmond (''First Minister'')
|area =
|pop =
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =
|gdp-pc =
|currency =
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Scotland''' is the second-largest and northern-most of the four countries in the [[United Kingdom]].
It is about three-eighths the size of its southern neighbour England, but is much less populous; most of the population lives in the ''central belt'', a band across central Scotland between the capital [[Edinburgh]] and the largest city, [[Glasgow]]. Other major cities are [[Aberdeen]] and [[Dundee]].

Scottish nationalists in recent years have sought greater regional autonomy, and have been granted control over some issues, including justice and education.

The Scottish government damaged its international prestige in August, 2009, when it released terrorist Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahl, the only man convicted in the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. He had served only 8 years of his term when he was released on grounds of compassion because he had terminal cancer. He was welcomed home in Libya as a national hero, to the disgust of the civilized world.
==Symbol==
The symbol of Scotland is the [[thistle]]. The Scottish flag is the Cross of St. Andrew, a white diagonal cross on a dark blue background. The design originated in the 9th century.
Scotland's motto is ''Nemo Me Impune Lacessit'' ("No one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref>

==Geography==
Scotland is split into three distinct geographical regions; the mountainous Highlands to the north, the rolling countryside of the Central Lowlands (where the major urban centres are located) and the hilly Southern Uplands that lie next to the English border. Scotland also includes the island groups of [[Orkney]], [[Shetland]], the [[Inner Hebrides|Inner]] and [[Outer Hebrides]], the islands of the [[Firth of Clyde]] including [[Arran]], [[Bute]], [[Cumbrae]] & [[Wee Cumbrae]], as well as the outlying [[St. Kilda]] archipelago, [[Rockall]] and various other smaller islands.

[[Ben Nevis]], the highest mountain in the [[United Kingdom]], is in the Scottish [[Highlands of Scotland|Highlands]], as are most of the nation's highest mountains. Those with heights above 3000 feet are eponymously named [[Munro| Munros]] after Sir Hector Munro, the first person to compile a list of such mountains.<ref> for a complete list of Munros see http://www.sol.co.uk/d/dickwall/munroes.htm</ref>

Scotland has some 2,300 miles of coastline, including numerous estuaries called ''firths'' and sea lochs. Major rivers include the Spey, Tweed, Clyde, and Forth with the Tay being Scotland's longest river. Lakes, called ''lochs'' in the region, are abundant, with the name applied both to freshwater lakes and to sea inlets; Lochs Lomond, Morar, and Ness are the largest in the British Isles and well-known for their picturesque beauty, with Loch Ness having additional fame as the home of a legendary monster.

==People==

====Religion====
* see [[Church of Scotland]]

Scotland is historically Christian; the national church is the [[Church of Scotland]].

Scotland was a Catholic nation until the time of the [[Reformation]], when [[John Knox]] (1510-1572), George Wishart(1513-46) and other scholars returned from their travels in Germany excited by the works of [[John Calvin]] and to a lesser extent [[Martin Luther]].

Many of the lords became Protestant and in 1560, the Scottish Parliament formally rejected Papal jurisdiction. The Protestants ousted the Catholic queen, Mary Stuart ('Mary, Queen of Scots') and replaced her with her son, [[James VI]] (later to become [[James I]] of England).

Scotland became overwhelmingly Protestant with Catholicism surviving only in the remote and sparsely populated Highlands. About a third of the Presbyterians split off in the "Disruption of 1843" to form the Free Church of Scotland. After various other splits most of the Free Church reunited with the Church of Scotland in 1929. The Church of Scotland had about 960,000 adult members in 1980 but only 600,000 in 2006.

From the mid 19th century until the inter war period, there were large scale immigrations of Irish Catholics to Scotland's industrial urban centers and this changed the religious demography. Today there are a similar number of communicants of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland although both religions have suffered considerable declines in church going attendances. The Anglican (Episcopalian) Church is predominant in the north-east. Recent immigration has produced significant populations of Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Sikhs in Scotland's major cities (Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee).

====Culture and sports====

Scotland has given the English speaking world many of the language's finest writers, poets and philosophers. Among these are Adam Smith, David Hume, Sir Walter Scott, Robert Burns, Frances Hutcheson, James Hogg, Robert Louis Stevenson, Arthur Conan Doyle, J.M Barrie and Hugh MacDiarmid. The Scottish intellectual and cultural tradition can be traced back to the Scottish Enlightenment, a remarkable period in the 18th century characterized by an outpouring of intellectual and scientific accomplishments. Indeed it was Voltaire who said "we look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilization." Scotland is also famous for its disproportionate amount of inventors and scientists such as Alexander Graham Bell (telephone), Lord Kelvin (the Kelvin si unit of temperature), James Watt (condensed steam power), John Napier (logarithms and the decimal point), Joseph Lister (pioneer of antiseptics), Alexander Fleming (penicillin) James Clark Maxwell (electro-magnetism), Robert Watson Watt (radar) and John Logie Baird (television). It is home to ancient world class universities including the three Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews and being one of the first industrialized and urbanized nations in the world.

Above all else the national preoccupation is [[football (soccer)]]. Other popular pastimes include [[rugby]], [[lawn bowls]], [[motorsports]], [[horseracing]], [[shinty]] (similar to hockey), [[curling]], sports of the [[Highland Games]] - such as tossing the [[caber]]- and, of course, [[golf]]. Scotland is the home of golf. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club at [[St Andrews]] is the governing body of world golf.

Other things associated with the country are [[kilt]]s ([[tartan]] skirt-like garments worn traditionally worn by Scotsmen), and the haunting music of the [[bagpipes]]. Famous Scottish products include [[pie]]s, [[haggis]] and Scotch [[whisky]].

==Government==
Scotland has its own [[Scottish Parliament]] comprising 129 members (MSPs) as well as sending 59 Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent its interests in the [[United Kingdom]] parliament which sits in [[London]]. Scottish MPs have historically been recognized for their political skills and appointed to the Cabinet in larger numbers than is proportionate; former Prime Ministers [[Gordon Brown]] and [[Tony Blair]] were born in Scotland.

The '''Scottish Government''' (formerly known as the Scottish Executive) is the government in Scotland for devolved matters. Responsibility for all devolved matters was passed to the Scottish Executive from the
'''Scottish Office''' and other UK Government departments in 1999. The members of the Scottish Government are chosen from the party or parties holding most seats in the Parliament. The Scottish Government is led by the First Minister, who forms a ministerial team of Cabinet Secretaries. In the election on May 5 2011, the [[Scottish National Party]] won a majority.

The Government of Scotland has recently come under global scrutiny for its decision, led by Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, to release the terrorist responsible for the 1998 [[Lockerbie]] bombing. A majority of the victims were American, and this decision received strong criticism from many Americans as well as the FBI Director Robert Mueller.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/22/fbi-director-slams-scotland-lockerbie-bomber-release/</ref> Libyan ruler Qaddafi profusely thanked British officials, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for helping secure the release of the terrorist back to Libya. British Prime Minister Brown replied with a confusing set of denials, a disapproval of the hero's welcome that the terrorist received upon return to Libya, and a partial release of voluminous communications leading up to the release.<ref>http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14376240</ref>

===Principal Government Officials===

The Government of Scotland has a number of departments within the cabinet, headed up by a cabinet secretary, as follows:

First Minister - Alex Salmond 
Deputy Firt Minister and Health Secretary - Nicola Sturgeon 
Finance Secretary - John Swinney 
Education Secretary - Mike Russell 
Justice Secretary - Kenny MacAskill 
Environment Secretary - Richard Lochhead

These secretaries are aided in their work by "ministers", working within the cabinet departments, and each having their own specific area of devloved responsibility.

<ref>http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/14944/Scottish-Cabinet</ref>

===Relations with England===
Relationships between Scottish and English MPs before [[devolution]] were sometimes tense because of what the former [[Conservative|Conservative Party]] MP, by then an [[Ulster Unionist]], [[Enoch Powell]] dubbed ''The West Lothian question''. The name arose in 1977 after [[Tam Dalyell]], Labour MP for West Lothian in Scotland, asked during a debate in the [[Houses of Parliament]] over Scottish and Welsh [[devolution]]:

<blockquote>''For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honorable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?''</blockquote>

He pointed out that he as MP for West Lothian could vote on matters affecting English constituencies but not his own constituency.

==Economy==
Scotland's position at the forefront of the industrial revolution in the 19th century bequeathed a legacy of heavy engineering and manufacturing that lasted well into the 20th century. However with de-industrialisation from the 1970s onwards and latterly the relocation of manufacturing jobs to countries with lower labour costs (eg. Eastern Europe) the Scottish economy is now heavily dependant on tourism, the oil industry, agriculture, the service industry and public sector jobs.

==History==
* see [[History of Scotland]]

Scotland has been inhabited since the first [[Mesolithic]] hunter-gatherers are thought to have migrated to Scotland.<ref>At least 8500 years before recorded history dealt with Britain, according to the uniformitarian timescale. [http://www.scotlandhistory.net/ Scotland History], Wormland, Jenny. Scotland: a History. 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press. p.1</ref>
These inhabitants showed advanced knowledge of astronomy, creating several [[Stonehenge]]-like monuments.

At the time of the [[Roman]]s the tribes in what became Scotland were similar to those further south, and can be considered to be [[Celtic]] peoples. Those from the North-East were called ‘Picti’ (Picts) by Roman writers, which could mean ‘painted people' and refer to tattoos. The Romans never subdued these northern tribes, and after a brief period when the Antonine Wall between the Firths of Forth and Clyde was the Roman Empire’s northern frontier, they drew back and had [[Hadrian’s Wall]] as the frontier. They did try to influence the tribes between the two Walls, and when kingdoms like Strathclyde emerged in the early [[Dark Ages]], their rulers often bore Roman names or titles, the dynasties having been founded by Roman officials. The Scots themselves began arriving as settlers in the West of Scotland at this time (AD 400-500). They were from a part of the north of [[Ireland]] and spoke Old Irish, which changed to become Scottish [[Gaelic]], and eventually replaced Pictish. They sometimes warred with the Picts and [[Briton]]s and sometimes allied with them, but a unified kingdom under the Scottish king Kenneth Mac Alpin was established in AD 843, called ‘Alba’ (still the [[Gaelic]] name for Scotland). This kingdom took over Strathclyde in the early 11th century to form the basis of Mediaeval Scotland. [[Normans]] and their descendants such as Robert the Bruce ('de Brus' was a Norman surname) became important nobles in Scotland.

====Union with England====
After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England in 1603, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of England. He was the first monarch to call himself King of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns. James was also at this time King of [[Ireland]].

The Parliaments of Scotland and [[England]] were not united until 1707 and it is this date that is recognized as the formation of [[Great Britain]]. This is referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. (The [[United Kingdom]] was to come into being with the addition of [[Ireland]] in 1801.) The formation of the Irish Free State in 1922 resulted in the current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

====Monarchs of Scotland====
(the years in brackets are the years during which the monarch ruled)
*[[Malcolm II (1005-1034)]]
*[[Duncan I (1034-1040)]]
*[[Macbeth (1040-1057)]]
*[[Malcolm III (1057-1093)]]
*[[Donald Bane (1093-1094)]]
*[[Duncan II (1094)]]
*[[Donald Bane (1093-1097)]]
*[[Edgar (1097-1107)]]
*[[Alexander I (1107-1124)]]
*[[David I (1124-1153)]]
*[[Malcolm IV (1153-1195)]]
*[[William (The Lion) (1165-1214)]]
*[[Alexander II (1214-1249)]]
*[[Alexander III (1249-1286)]]
*[[Margaret of Norway (1286-1290)]]
*[[John Baliol (1292-1296)]]
*[[Robert I (1306-1329)]]
*[[David II|David II (1329-1371)]]
'''House Of Stuart'''
*[[Robert II|Robert II (1371-1390)]]
*[[Robert III (1390-1406)]]
*[[James I (1406-1437)]]
*[[James II (1437-1460)]]
*[[James III (1460-1488)]]
*[[James IV (1488-1513)]]
*[[James V (1513-1542)]]
*[[Mary Queen of Scots]] (1542-1567)
*[[James VI (1567-1625)]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.n-cyclopedia.com/scottish-history/index.htm A Brief History of Scotland]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scotland]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Scottish Culture]]

Talk:Mystery:Why is England More Liberal than the United States?

2011-07-20T01:54:20Z

WilliamB1: /* A federal England and freedom of speech */

Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Andy,

This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteristic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against "liberalism". Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be described in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning.
:I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out "England" specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on - but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]]

== The entrenched Church of England ==

I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== More liberal ==

Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== The BBC ==
It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::Do you deny that The BBC is the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I will answer from my perspective of living in the UK for a year not so long ago. Yes. Liberally biased but not ''heavily'' liberally biased. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::FergusE, rather than turning on me for pointing out a factual error and posing a question that bears no relevance to the point I was making, you could just accept your mistake graciously. I never said it wasn't the dominant media in England. And I do not think it is even possible, or sensible to divide the world up into things which are 'conservative' and things which are 'liberal' as if the two terms are categories set in stone and used in the same way by everyone. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

==A federal England and freedom of speech==

This is quite a slippery argument. England is a much smaller country than the United States and it's hard to see how it would be practical to devise any sort of federal structure. Of course, the United Kingdom is now, essentially, arranged along federal lines. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies or parliaments.

I don't quite understand the freedom of speech argument. What evidence is there that England is less at home to the right of free expression than is the United States?--[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 11:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:England does not guarantee a right of free speech. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::Actually Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 states: 
::''Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' however this was only guaranteed in 2000 unlike the US which was in the 1700's [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:42, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Are there any cases where this has made any difference?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Well, the fact is they do have the freedom of speech which is protected by law. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::It has frequently made a difference. Indeed, many in the Conservative Party are calling for an overhaul of UK human rights laws since they believe them to have led to overly lenient sentences in certain court cases. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::Are there any examples that could be reviewed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/21/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases-%E2%80%93-hugh-tomlinson-qc/ Here] and [http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/case-law-mgn-v-united-kingdom-partial-victory-for-mirror-group-on-cfas-defeat-on-privacy/ here.] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Your second link seems to support my point: there still is not freedom of speech in England. (I couldn't get your first link to work).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Article 10 ''does'' guarantee freedom of speech and expression but the question is whether it is used and, anyway, it is some 300 years behind the US meaning that they haven't had any opportunity to exercise it like the US. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:37, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
Well, this article provides a rather nice summary; David Cameron [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/28/conservatives-human-rights for the repeal of the Human Rights Act]. If you would like anything more specific from me it will have to wait. It's 3.30am over here and I need my sleep. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

: Your link seems to be broken, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:: Fixed. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:54, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Move Request ==

Can a moderator move the page to [[Mystery:Why is The United Kingdom More Liberal than the United States?]]? It would make more sense because England is only one part of the country. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

: No, I don't think so. "England", the dominant nation in the United Kingdom, is the more familiar term. And England itself is more liberal than the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::Hello Andy, I am new to this site and think there could be some interesting observations to be made in this article. with the intention of being helpful, unless you really do mean Engalnd excluding Wales, Scotland etc. I must point out that "England" as a term for the whole of the United Kingdom has long passed into non-accetpable use appart from in very casual parlance outside of the United Kingdom and even then it is regarded as incorrect and even parochial. If the article is going to be worthy of a encyclopedic resource for educational use, I would along with Tony's suggestion. If it needs to be concise, "Britain" is the more common contracted term to refer to the whole of the UK (even inlcuding Northern Ireland) pretty much everywhere.[[User:DavidMilton]]

::Mr Schlafly, Scotland and Wales are also more liberal than the US. Northern Ireland is becoming liberal too as interest in religion declines. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Is England the most liberal of all?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:30, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

::::The Conservative Party would have a majority of Parliamentary seats if you took England on its own, and the vast majority of the Conservative Party vote comes from the English electorate. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:52, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Population Density?? ==

I was thinking along the lines of major differences between England and the US and one of the biggest differences that kept popping up in my mind was population density. The US has a much smaller population density than England. In fact I think England has a population density that is 12 times more dense compared in to the US. Basic politics and voting patterns in the US say that urban areas (high population density) tend to vote Democratic while rural areas (low population density) tend to vote Republican. [http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.asp] So maybe England has the similar trends with their voting habits.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

: Great point ... worth including. Please feel free to add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:: I know the referenced article I used for the trends referenced evolution, but I was in the middle of watching a movie with my family so I didn't have time to look for another one.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Are you sure about this population density idea? Constituencies in thinly populated areas like the Highlands of Scotland, the Northern and Western Isles, the Scottish Borders, mid-Wales and Cornwall have consistently voted Liberal or Labour. I think liberal attitudes in Britain have much more to do with a lack of religious belief and low church attendance. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:38, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Good point. Some counterexamples exist in the US also: Vermont, one of the most rural states, is also perhaps the most liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:39, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I'll admit that there are some counter example, but that is why I didn't use exclusive language, because there are always things that fall outside generalities.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:06, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== '''the Church leads the nation and govt,''' ==
the Church is the Light of the world, (Light = guide)
the Church is the Salt of the earth, (salt = preservative)

the politicians and people will follow the Church,
because Christ gave all Christians authority over demons and diseases,
see theelijahchallenge.org

the Church speaks with authority,
and the Church confounds the evil spirits in a nation, with Spiritual warfare (prayer, authoritative commands)

Christians rebuke the evil spirits with Kingly authority,commands,
a General moves his troops with a spoken word (command), because the King has authority,
we are kings,,,,,,,,,and Christ is our King of kings,
the Father gave Christ all authority in Heaven and earth,

so Britain is liberal because the Church is apostate,liberal,lukewarm,babylon, mother of harlets, rev17

but in recent years,,,,,most north american churches have called evil good,
so most churches in the world are apostate, babylon, ,,,,,,,,we're in the endtimes
see www.bible-codes.org

9-11-01 world trade center collapse
9-11-08 world trade collapse
9-29-08 dow-jones fell 777.7 points, on jewish new years day, the first day of the jewish calendar year 5769,
during sept 2008 (christian calendar year)
2008 + 5769 = 7777 years,,,,,,,,,the Dow fell 777.7 points ON THAT SAME DAY,,,,9-29-08

SIGNS FROM GOD!

== '''GREAT SYMBOLIC STORY, SIGN FROM GOD''' ==

It's common knowledge that Christians fled religious persecution from the State Churches (Church of England and others) and the RCC,

to come to the NEW WORLD, for religious freedom,

the early colonial americans were revived and united by the FIRST GREAT AWAKENING,
and those Christians prayed for good govt,
and they sent their best men (Bible-believers) to the Convention, to write the Founding Documents (Declaration, Constitutions, Bill of Rights)

Christ answered their prayers, and inspired the Founders to write WORLD-CLASS freedoms, rights, biblical principles of good govt,

so Christ super-blessed the bible-believing nation, usa, with Spiritual and physical riches,

and the usa was the lone super-power,,,,she dominated the nations in every category (economy,stability, politics, entertainment, publicity, jobs, freedoms, rights, olympics, inventions, medicine,science, space race, health, corn belt, etc)

the usa king (president) dominated the other kings of the nations,,,,,,,like a King of kings (a Christ-figure, in the Bible-believing nation)

mexico is dominated by rcc (not bible-belief),,,,and is 3rd world,
but usa is the lone super-blessed super-power,,,,,,,because we believe the bible,,,,,,a nation of fundamentalist Christians.

all non-christian nations are ruined by Christ-rejection,
the Christian bible-believing nations are rich,powerful, super-blessed,
WHICH IS A GREAT SIGN TO THE WORLD,
CHRIST IS GOOD FOR A NATION,

but since 1987, most north american churches are calling evil good,
and God pulled His Holy Spirit of Christ out of those bad churches,
and the endtimes began

www.bible-codes.org

written by dennis

Talk:Mystery:Why is England More Liberal than the United States?

2011-07-20T01:52:44Z

WilliamB1: /* Move Request */

Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Andy,

This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteristic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against "liberalism". Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be described in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning.
:I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out "England" specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on - but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]]

== The entrenched Church of England ==

I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== More liberal ==

Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== The BBC ==
It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::Do you deny that The BBC is the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I will answer from my perspective of living in the UK for a year not so long ago. Yes. Liberally biased but not ''heavily'' liberally biased. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::FergusE, rather than turning on me for pointing out a factual error and posing a question that bears no relevance to the point I was making, you could just accept your mistake graciously. I never said it wasn't the dominant media in England. And I do not think it is even possible, or sensible to divide the world up into things which are 'conservative' and things which are 'liberal' as if the two terms are categories set in stone and used in the same way by everyone. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

==A federal England and freedom of speech==

This is quite a slippery argument. England is a much smaller country than the United States and it's hard to see how it would be practical to devise any sort of federal structure. Of course, the United Kingdom is now, essentially, arranged along federal lines. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies or parliaments.

I don't quite understand the freedom of speech argument. What evidence is there that England is less at home to the right of free expression than is the United States?--[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 11:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:England does not guarantee a right of free speech. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::Actually Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 states: 
::''Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' however this was only guaranteed in 2000 unlike the US which was in the 1700's [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:42, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Are there any cases where this has made any difference?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Well, the fact is they do have the freedom of speech which is protected by law. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::It has frequently made a difference. Indeed, many in the Conservative Party are calling for an overhaul of UK human rights laws since they believe them to have led to overly lenient sentences in certain court cases. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::Are there any examples that could be reviewed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/21/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases-%E2%80%93-hugh-tomlinson-qc/ Here] and [http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/case-law-mgn-v-united-kingdom-partial-victory-for-mirror-group-on-cfas-defeat-on-privacy/ here.] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Your second link seems to support my point: there still is not freedom of speech in England. (I couldn't get your first link to work).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Article 10 ''does'' guarantee freedom of speech and expression but the question is whether it is used and, anyway, it is some 300 years behind the US meaning that they haven't had any opportunity to exercise it like the US. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:37, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
Well, this article provides a rather nice summary; David Cameron [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/may/12/immigrationpolicy.immigrationcalling for the repeal of the Human Rights Act]. If you would like anything more specific from me it will have to wait. It's 3.30am over here and I need my sleep. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

: Your link seems to be broken, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Move Request ==

Can a moderator move the page to [[Mystery:Why is The United Kingdom More Liberal than the United States?]]? It would make more sense because England is only one part of the country. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

: No, I don't think so. "England", the dominant nation in the United Kingdom, is the more familiar term. And England itself is more liberal than the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::Hello Andy, I am new to this site and think there could be some interesting observations to be made in this article. with the intention of being helpful, unless you really do mean Engalnd excluding Wales, Scotland etc. I must point out that "England" as a term for the whole of the United Kingdom has long passed into non-accetpable use appart from in very casual parlance outside of the United Kingdom and even then it is regarded as incorrect and even parochial. If the article is going to be worthy of a encyclopedic resource for educational use, I would along with Tony's suggestion. If it needs to be concise, "Britain" is the more common contracted term to refer to the whole of the UK (even inlcuding Northern Ireland) pretty much everywhere.[[User:DavidMilton]]

::Mr Schlafly, Scotland and Wales are also more liberal than the US. Northern Ireland is becoming liberal too as interest in religion declines. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Is England the most liberal of all?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:30, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

::::The Conservative Party would have a majority of Parliamentary seats if you took England on its own, and the vast majority of the Conservative Party vote comes from the English electorate. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:52, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Population Density?? ==

I was thinking along the lines of major differences between England and the US and one of the biggest differences that kept popping up in my mind was population density. The US has a much smaller population density than England. In fact I think England has a population density that is 12 times more dense compared in to the US. Basic politics and voting patterns in the US say that urban areas (high population density) tend to vote Democratic while rural areas (low population density) tend to vote Republican. [http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.asp] So maybe England has the similar trends with their voting habits.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

: Great point ... worth including. Please feel free to add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:: I know the referenced article I used for the trends referenced evolution, but I was in the middle of watching a movie with my family so I didn't have time to look for another one.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Are you sure about this population density idea? Constituencies in thinly populated areas like the Highlands of Scotland, the Northern and Western Isles, the Scottish Borders, mid-Wales and Cornwall have consistently voted Liberal or Labour. I think liberal attitudes in Britain have much more to do with a lack of religious belief and low church attendance. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:38, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Good point. Some counterexamples exist in the US also: Vermont, one of the most rural states, is also perhaps the most liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:39, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I'll admit that there are some counter example, but that is why I didn't use exclusive language, because there are always things that fall outside generalities.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:06, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== '''the Church leads the nation and govt,''' ==
the Church is the Light of the world, (Light = guide)
the Church is the Salt of the earth, (salt = preservative)

the politicians and people will follow the Church,
because Christ gave all Christians authority over demons and diseases,
see theelijahchallenge.org

the Church speaks with authority,
and the Church confounds the evil spirits in a nation, with Spiritual warfare (prayer, authoritative commands)

Christians rebuke the evil spirits with Kingly authority,commands,
a General moves his troops with a spoken word (command), because the King has authority,
we are kings,,,,,,,,,and Christ is our King of kings,
the Father gave Christ all authority in Heaven and earth,

so Britain is liberal because the Church is apostate,liberal,lukewarm,babylon, mother of harlets, rev17

but in recent years,,,,,most north american churches have called evil good,
so most churches in the world are apostate, babylon, ,,,,,,,,we're in the endtimes
see www.bible-codes.org

9-11-01 world trade center collapse
9-11-08 world trade collapse
9-29-08 dow-jones fell 777.7 points, on jewish new years day, the first day of the jewish calendar year 5769,
during sept 2008 (christian calendar year)
2008 + 5769 = 7777 years,,,,,,,,,the Dow fell 777.7 points ON THAT SAME DAY,,,,9-29-08

SIGNS FROM GOD!

== '''GREAT SYMBOLIC STORY, SIGN FROM GOD''' ==

It's common knowledge that Christians fled religious persecution from the State Churches (Church of England and others) and the RCC,

to come to the NEW WORLD, for religious freedom,

the early colonial americans were revived and united by the FIRST GREAT AWAKENING,
and those Christians prayed for good govt,
and they sent their best men (Bible-believers) to the Convention, to write the Founding Documents (Declaration, Constitutions, Bill of Rights)

Christ answered their prayers, and inspired the Founders to write WORLD-CLASS freedoms, rights, biblical principles of good govt,

so Christ super-blessed the bible-believing nation, usa, with Spiritual and physical riches,

and the usa was the lone super-power,,,,she dominated the nations in every category (economy,stability, politics, entertainment, publicity, jobs, freedoms, rights, olympics, inventions, medicine,science, space race, health, corn belt, etc)

the usa king (president) dominated the other kings of the nations,,,,,,,like a King of kings (a Christ-figure, in the Bible-believing nation)

mexico is dominated by rcc (not bible-belief),,,,and is 3rd world,
but usa is the lone super-blessed super-power,,,,,,,because we believe the bible,,,,,,a nation of fundamentalist Christians.

all non-christian nations are ruined by Christ-rejection,
the Christian bible-believing nations are rich,powerful, super-blessed,
WHICH IS A GREAT SIGN TO THE WORLD,
CHRIST IS GOOD FOR A NATION,

but since 1987, most north american churches are calling evil good,
and God pulled His Holy Spirit of Christ out of those bad churches,
and the endtimes began

www.bible-codes.org

written by dennis

Talk:Mystery:Why is England More Liberal than the United States?

2011-07-20T01:52:13Z

WilliamB1: /* Move Request */

Nice essay! I hope you add more! I have always been wondering this, considering until recently England was more centered towards religion. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:15, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Andy,

This is a very interesting topic, but I think an important point needs to be raised. English liberalism is not a new problem. It's important to keep in mind that many of the first colonists in America came here to escape from what they perceived as laxity within the Church of England, and that the revolutionary war was a reaction to British governmental overreach and over-regulation. In many ways, American conservatism is a RESPONSE to British liberalism. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:There is no doubt that the roots of revolution were in the overreach of government and taxation. The latter may be characteristic of left leaning (liberal) governments but I think it is a little anachronistic to decribe this a a reaction against "liberalism". Going further, I don't believe the British government of the time, while authoritarian, could be described in terms of either classical liberalism or its current meaning.
:I would add that fundamental reason why Great Britain/UK (I have no idea why this work singles out "England" specifically) and Europe generally have more liberal attitudes has arisen from several historical trends - that this topic needs to expand on - but most notable the contrasting feature of the United States is that its growth and success rests on indiviudal responsibility, liberties and a hostile mindset to big government and tax since the revolution! [[User:Laguardia|Laguardia]]

== The entrenched Church of England ==

I wonder if part of the reason is that the officially entrenched nature of the Anglican Church has caused a complacency amongst the religious over there. In many ways the Church of England has become more of a social organisation than a religious one, and this has had a liberalizing effect on the population on the whole. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 14:43, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:Good point ... and certainly worth adding. I'll include it now, and please feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== More liberal ==

Is the UK more liberal? What factors are we judging its liberalism on? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:England is certainly less [[conservative]] than the U.S.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:07, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::I am sure that it is but I am just wondering about what factors have been taken into account. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

== The BBC ==
It's a public broadcaster, which tend to be liberal (look at NPR and PBS in the US) and furthermore, Brits have no choice in funding it, as it's paid for by mandatory TV licenses. Finally, while there is commercial (i.e. non-government TV) in Britain, the BBC is the only free (as in beer, aside from the license) option. Because of the tightly-controlled media, and lack of a free market, it's no wonder liberalism is so rampant there. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:The BBC is not the only free-to-view broadcaster by any means. Up until the advent of digital television there were five free channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5. There are now dozens more free-to-air channels, the vast majority of them being commercial broadcasters. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::Do you deny that The BBC is the dominant media in England and that it's heavily liberally biased? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 22:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I will answer from my perspective of living in the UK for a year not so long ago. Yes. Liberally biased but not ''heavily'' liberally biased. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::FergusE, rather than turning on me for pointing out a factual error and posing a question that bears no relevance to the point I was making, you could just accept your mistake graciously. I never said it wasn't the dominant media in England. And I do not think it is even possible, or sensible to divide the world up into things which are 'conservative' and things which are 'liberal' as if the two terms are categories set in stone and used in the same way by everyone. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

==A federal England and freedom of speech==

This is quite a slippery argument. England is a much smaller country than the United States and it's hard to see how it would be practical to devise any sort of federal structure. Of course, the United Kingdom is now, essentially, arranged along federal lines. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own assemblies or parliaments.

I don't quite understand the freedom of speech argument. What evidence is there that England is less at home to the right of free expression than is the United States?--[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 11:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:England does not guarantee a right of free speech. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::Actually Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 states: 
::''Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' however this was only guaranteed in 2000 unlike the US which was in the 1700's [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:42, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Are there any cases where this has made any difference?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Well, the fact is they do have the freedom of speech which is protected by law. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::It has frequently made a difference. Indeed, many in the Conservative Party are calling for an overhaul of UK human rights laws since they believe them to have led to overly lenient sentences in certain court cases. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::Are there any examples that could be reviewed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/21/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases-%E2%80%93-hugh-tomlinson-qc/ Here] and [http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/case-law-mgn-v-united-kingdom-partial-victory-for-mirror-group-on-cfas-defeat-on-privacy/ here.] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:31, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Your second link seems to support my point: there still is not freedom of speech in England. (I couldn't get your first link to work).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Article 10 ''does'' guarantee freedom of speech and expression but the question is whether it is used and, anyway, it is some 300 years behind the US meaning that they haven't had any opportunity to exercise it like the US. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:37, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
Well, this article provides a rather nice summary; David Cameron [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/may/12/immigrationpolicy.immigrationcalling for the repeal of the Human Rights Act]. If you would like anything more specific from me it will have to wait. It's 3.30am over here and I need my sleep. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 22:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

: Your link seems to be broken, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Move Request ==

Can a moderator move the page to [[Mystery:Why is The United Kingdom More Liberal than the United States?]]? It would make more sense because England is only one part of the country. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

: No, I don't think so. "England", the dominant nation in the United Kingdom, is the more familiar term. And England itself is more liberal than the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::Hello Andy, I am new to this site and think there could be some interesting observations to be made in this article. with the intention of being helpful, unless you really do mean Engalnd excluding Wales, Scotland etc. I must point out that "England" as a term for the whole of the United Kingdom has long passed into non-accetpable use appart from in very casual parlance outside of the United Kingdom and even then it is regarded as incorrect and even parochial. If the article is going to be worthy of a encyclopedic resource for educational use, I would along with Tony's suggestion. If it needs to be concise, "Britain" is the more common contracted term to refer to the whole of the UK (even inlcuding Northern Ireland) pretty much everywhere.[[User:DavidMilton]]

::Mr Schlafly, Scotland and Wales are also more liberal than the US. Northern Ireland is becoming liberal too as interest in religion declines. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Is England the most liberal of all?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:30, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

::::The Conservative Party holds the majority of the Parliamentary seats if you take England on its own, and the vast majority of the Conservative Party vote comes from the English electorate. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 21:52, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Population Density?? ==

I was thinking along the lines of major differences between England and the US and one of the biggest differences that kept popping up in my mind was population density. The US has a much smaller population density than England. In fact I think England has a population density that is 12 times more dense compared in to the US. Basic politics and voting patterns in the US say that urban areas (high population density) tend to vote Democratic while rural areas (low population density) tend to vote Republican. [http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.asp] So maybe England has the similar trends with their voting habits.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

: Great point ... worth including. Please feel free to add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:: I know the referenced article I used for the trends referenced evolution, but I was in the middle of watching a movie with my family so I didn't have time to look for another one.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Are you sure about this population density idea? Constituencies in thinly populated areas like the Highlands of Scotland, the Northern and Western Isles, the Scottish Borders, mid-Wales and Cornwall have consistently voted Liberal or Labour. I think liberal attitudes in Britain have much more to do with a lack of religious belief and low church attendance. [[User:HollyS|HollyS]] 19:38, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Good point. Some counterexamples exist in the US also: Vermont, one of the most rural states, is also perhaps the most liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:39, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I'll admit that there are some counter example, but that is why I didn't use exclusive language, because there are always things that fall outside generalities.--[[User:Harrymd|Harrymd]] 21:06, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== '''the Church leads the nation and govt,''' ==
the Church is the Light of the world, (Light = guide)
the Church is the Salt of the earth, (salt = preservative)

the politicians and people will follow the Church,
because Christ gave all Christians authority over demons and diseases,
see theelijahchallenge.org

the Church speaks with authority,
and the Church confounds the evil spirits in a nation, with Spiritual warfare (prayer, authoritative commands)

Christians rebuke the evil spirits with Kingly authority,commands,
a General moves his troops with a spoken word (command), because the King has authority,
we are kings,,,,,,,,,and Christ is our King of kings,
the Father gave Christ all authority in Heaven and earth,

so Britain is liberal because the Church is apostate,liberal,lukewarm,babylon, mother of harlets, rev17

but in recent years,,,,,most north american churches have called evil good,
so most churches in the world are apostate, babylon, ,,,,,,,,we're in the endtimes
see www.bible-codes.org

9-11-01 world trade center collapse
9-11-08 world trade collapse
9-29-08 dow-jones fell 777.7 points, on jewish new years day, the first day of the jewish calendar year 5769,
during sept 2008 (christian calendar year)
2008 + 5769 = 7777 years,,,,,,,,,the Dow fell 777.7 points ON THAT SAME DAY,,,,9-29-08

SIGNS FROM GOD!

== '''GREAT SYMBOLIC STORY, SIGN FROM GOD''' ==

It's common knowledge that Christians fled religious persecution from the State Churches (Church of England and others) and the RCC,

to come to the NEW WORLD, for religious freedom,

the early colonial americans were revived and united by the FIRST GREAT AWAKENING,
and those Christians prayed for good govt,
and they sent their best men (Bible-believers) to the Convention, to write the Founding Documents (Declaration, Constitutions, Bill of Rights)

Christ answered their prayers, and inspired the Founders to write WORLD-CLASS freedoms, rights, biblical principles of good govt,

so Christ super-blessed the bible-believing nation, usa, with Spiritual and physical riches,

and the usa was the lone super-power,,,,she dominated the nations in every category (economy,stability, politics, entertainment, publicity, jobs, freedoms, rights, olympics, inventions, medicine,science, space race, health, corn belt, etc)

the usa king (president) dominated the other kings of the nations,,,,,,,like a King of kings (a Christ-figure, in the Bible-believing nation)

mexico is dominated by rcc (not bible-belief),,,,and is 3rd world,
but usa is the lone super-blessed super-power,,,,,,,because we believe the bible,,,,,,a nation of fundamentalist Christians.

all non-christian nations are ruined by Christ-rejection,
the Christian bible-believing nations are rich,powerful, super-blessed,
WHICH IS A GREAT SIGN TO THE WORLD,
CHRIST IS GOOD FOR A NATION,

but since 1987, most north american churches are calling evil good,
and God pulled His Holy Spirit of Christ out of those bad churches,
and the endtimes began

www.bible-codes.org

written by dennis

Talk:Mystery:Why is England More Liberal than the United States?

2011-07-19T02:33:09Z

WilliamB1: /* A federal England and freedom of speech */

Talk:Mystery:Why is England More Liberal than the United States?

2011-07-19T02:27:18Z

WilliamB1: /* A federal England and freedom of speech */

British Broadcasting Corporation

2011-07-19T02:22:09Z

WilliamB1: there are exemptions for certain groups, e.g. pensioners, certain disabilities

<big>''"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"''-</big> Andrew Marr- BBC reporter.

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' (BBC) is the major national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is the largest broadcaster in the world by audience figures.

BBC was given a royal charter in 1927 as a public body; it replaced a private, commercially run British Broadcasting Company, which began in 1922. The royal charter and license, constitute the BBC as a public corporation with a mandate to provide broadcasting as a public service. BBC is funded by an annual license fee levied on the majority of UK residents owning a television set regardless of income. The BBC's monopoly on lasted from 1922 until 1973 and the introduction of commercial radio. It monopolised television from 1936 to 1954, when the Television Act allowed for the establishment of commercial stations financed by spot advertising.

The BBC is criticised for political bias, particularly [[liberal]], and for being overly [[politically correct]] and overly supportive and selective in its coverage of the [[Labour Party]]. Analysts have accused the numerous extremist links to this BBC indicates a possible propaganda media network connection to [[Al Qaeda]]. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472430/WikiLeaks-Leaked-files-accuse-BBC-of-being-part-of-a-possible-propaganda-media-network.html BBC part of 'possible propaganda media network', Telegraphe UK, April 25, 2011]</ref>

== Broadcasting ==
The BBC operates eight national television channels (nine including the High-Definition service- BBC HD)[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are its regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.

The BBC produces many well-known television programmes, including ''The Ten O'Clock News'', ''Newsnight'', ''Question Time'', ''Eastenders'', ''Holby City'', ''Casualty'', ''Top Gear'', ''Match of the Day'', ''Have I Got News For You'' and ''Doctor Who''.

Its best known TV channels in the UK are BBC 1 and BBC 2. The other channels are broadcast as digital-only services and are available to owners of terrestrial digital receiving equipment. BBC 1 typically shows more mainstream programmes while BBC 2 has a reputation for more diversity and special interest content.

Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.

== Funding ==
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref> of £135.50 (about $250 ) per year. All owners of TV receiving equipment are obliged to pay the fee whether they watch BBC content or not. As such the license fee is often criticised as being a tax.

BBC programming is free of commercial advertising. However, it has some obligations to transmit statements by political parties and it advertises its own programmes. BBC channels transmitted in the UK are nevertheless free of commercial advertising - with the exception of sporting events, during which it is still permitted to display commercial advertising. Cricket matches were a previous source of contention as adverts projected onto the field of play are only visible to television viewers. This results in much greater non-advertising broadcasting time and uninterrupted broadcast of feature films. However, since the funding is determined by the government, the BBC can be slow to criticise those in power. This arrangement means the government has to do very little to apply pressure on the BBC and often the BBC will self regulate in favour of the government without any formal instruction being given.<ref>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5006.htm</ref> This in turn leads to the government and the BBC being able to declare independence and neutrality officially, while in reality this is far from the case.

Whilst there is a vocal campaign to have the BBC changed into a commercial company, this appears highly unlikely to happen.

== Ownership ==
The BBC is an independent body which is held in trust for the British people. The BBC was most recently given a ten-year royal charter in 2006 that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, free from commercial and government influence.

Control rests with the 12-person BBC Trust, which replaced the Board of Governors in 2007. Trust members are paid and are appointed by the British prime minister and are supposed to represent the interests of a broad cross-section of the British listening and viewing public. Day-to-day management is handled by the board of management, headed by the director general; its members are appointed by the board of governors.

==BBC News==
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/] It produces some 120 hours of news broadcasts daily.

News programmes are produced for both TV and radio stations. Much of the TV news programming is delivered in a few major news bulletins throughout the day, the most recognised of which is the flagship Ten O'Clock News in the evening on BBC1. On BBC radio, news is delivered in mostly smaller segments on the hour or half hour. However, the Today programme on Radio 4 is broadcast from 7am to 9am and is often considered the most influential news broadcast in the UK.

News produced by the BBC is made available and archived on the BBC news website.

==Internet==
The BBC has a news and archive website, one of the top twenty most popular English language websites. Like its TV and radio broadcasting it is not allowed to show advertising if the site is viewed from within the UK. This has prompted some criticism from within the BBC as it means funds from the licensing fee used for the website are not available for TV and radio programming. However, some costs of the site are now, since late 2007, offset by advertising to non-UK based visitors to the site.

Competitors have also criticised the BBC website due to its ability to fund itself non-commercially without advertising to the detriment of its commercial competitors such as on-line versions of national newspapers and other news broadcasters such as Sky and ITN.
==History==
From its inception in 1922, J. C. W. Reith, the first director-general of the BBC, envisioned the organisation as an integral advocate of patriotism and the empire at home.

===Second World War===
From June 1940 to March 1941, the writer J. B. Priestley (1894-1984), broadcast a widely popular series of Sunday-night radio talks, 'Postscripts to the News.' He became the best known, most gifted, and probably most popular BBC commentator, for he had caught the mood of the British people during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. His forced departure was controversial and harmful to the BBC. Priestley blamed Prime Minister Churchill's negative reaction to his left-wing views on postwar reconstruction. Actually his firing was mainly due to Ministry of Information and BBC reluctance to allow an extended forum to a 'demagogic' personality who might attract a personal following, as [[Father Coughlin]] had done in the United States in the 1930s. The upshot was employment of a wider range of speakers and careful avoidance of controversy.

The BBC played a major role in promoting the British Empire worldwide during [[World War II|The Second World War, 1939-45]]. The BBC became the voice of Britain, reflecting as well as constructing the nation's history, culture, and tradition. At first the BBC worked aggressively to deflect criticism and insure that the Empire appeared as a source of strength. It presented British imperialism as a benefit to both Britain and the colonised areas. However, as the war progressed and postwar objectives became a concern, the focus of the BBC expanded to include the importance of maintaining Britain as an imperial power.<ref> Thomas Hajkowski, "The BBC, the Empire, and the Second World War, 1939-1945," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 2002 22(2): 135-155 </ref>

Special programs were directed to peoples controlled by the Nazis; listening to the short-wave broadcasts was illegal but widespread. The German-language Austrian Service was directed by Patrick Smith, who emphasised the 'separateness' of Austria from Germany and on 'freedom and independence' as the Austrian goal. As victory approached the BBC stressed the need for Austrians themselves to take part in their own liberation. There were interviews with Austrian prisoners of war held in Britain.

Until 1944, broadcasts by the BBC's Hungarian service avoided describing the plight of the Jews in Hungary for fear that it would create an anti-Semitic backlash against one of the few Jewish populations in Europe which, though persecuted, was still allowed to live. Shortly after the Nazi occupation of Hungary in March 1944 the rounding up and deporting of Jews to death camps began. For the next four months, until Hungarian regent Horthy suspended the deportations, the Hungarian service repeatedly broadcast news of the deportation of Jews and urged Hungarians to obstruct, delay, and hinder the deportations in the name of humanity and Hungarian patriotism. Altering BBC Hungarian service policies regarding the Final Solution would perhaps have done little to slow the [[Holocaust]] in Hungary.<ref> Gabriel Milland, "The BBC Hungarian Service and the Final Solution in Hungary," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 1998 18(3): 353-373 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref> The BBC Home Service rarely mentioned the massacre of Jews for many reasons, including the restraints formally imposed by a government at war, the notions that such reports simply would not be believed (or, being incomprehensible, written off as propaganda) or might spur a latent anti-Semitism, and the fact that people were not interested in gloomy stories but wanted to hear about the war effort.<ref>Jeremy D. Harris, "Broadcasting the Massacres: an Analysis of the BBC's Contemporary Coverage of the Holocaust." ''Yad Vashem Studies'' 1996 25: 65-98 </ref>

===Cultural Impact===
====Monopoly years====
As the only TV broadcaster until the mid 1950s and only radio broadcaster until the mid 1970s, the BBC had a monopoly hold on British electronic media. As such its content was highly influential.

'Children's Hour', begun in the late 1920s, was intended as a medium for democracy and the production of exemplary citizens through the dissemination of idealised middle-class values. In time, this approach proved to be out of touch with the listening habits and working class context of many 'Children's Hour' listeners.

Music broadcasts for schools were begun in 1924, and did much to disseminate new ideas, especially through 'music and movement' programs and the enormously popular 'Singing Together' during the Second World War. However, the more formal programs, designed to teach the rudiments of music and notation, were less successful, and Sir Walford Davies's idea of tune building by children was abandoned in 1934. Radio's ability to teach music formally appeared severely limited, and serious doubts as to its precise function in relationship to music teachers were constantly voiced and never answered.<ref>Gordon Cox, "School Music Broadcasts and the BBC 1924-47," ''History of Education'' 1996 25(4): 363-371 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

Scottish broadcasters forged a unique and specifically Scottish tradition of radio programming in the 1920s, led by the Aberdeen studies of the BBC. However its role was weakened by a policy of centralisation in London after 1932. Radio drama based on collaboration with local theatre companies was especially strong, included much original work, and made a major contribution to the development of professional theatre in Scotland. The centralisation of radio broadcasting in London reflected the shift in the organisation of the British state toward greater involvement in the everyday lives of its citizens during the interwar years.<ref> Adrienne Scullion, "BBC Radio in Scotland, 1923-1939: Devolution, Regionalism and Centralisation." ''Northern Scotland'' 1995 15: 63-93 </ref>
====Competitive years====
Since the late 1970s the BBC, while exposed to high volumes and variable quality of competition, has remained popular with the British public and its cultural influence is still a major force. The BBC is considered the default choice by many when viewing major events such as breaking news or state occasions, even though competitors may be broadcasting the same content.

The BBC has had enormous influence over British attitudes to not just politics but also comedy, [[multiculturalism]], travel, natural history, international culture, popular trends, fashion and even the way the British speak. Through its foreign broadcasts on the BBC World Service, it has also had significant cultural influence outside the UK.

==Accusations of Bias==

The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of [[liberal bias]], it also receives accusations of cultural [[bias]], regional bias, [[political correctness]], bias towards multiculturalism and minority interests, as well as both pro- and anti-government bias.

The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.

While the BBC had been accused of bias many times in its history, a liberal bias became prevalent during the reign of Prime Minster [[Margaret Thatcher]], likely as a direct result of her government's efforts to streamline the corporation and make it more efficient. Before her reign, the BBC's overall ideology had fluctuated quite often between being pro-Conservative and pro-Liberal, mostly depending on which party was in power. Since Thatcher's reign though, it has been guilty of a quite pro-Liberal stance.

===Bias against the US and Israel===
Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the High Court of England and Wales. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible" and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.<ref>“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.</ref>

During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]]. At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.

On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism due to their apology over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.<ref>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull</ref> The incident is one of many examples of repeated and systematic anti-Israeli bias from the BBC over a number of years.

However, the BBC was also criticised by some for refusing to show a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza following the fighting in the region in December 2008 - January 2009. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4789700/BBC-Trust-chairman-attacks-politicians-over-Gaza-appeal-pressure.html</ref>

===Liberal bias===
Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report<ref>'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13530 BBC Report: Network’s Bias Due to 'The Inherent Liberal Culture of its Staff’], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], June 17, 2007</ref> - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:
*has an "institutional Left-wing bias" (its 'Play for Today' series in the 1960s/70s was known as the '[[Trotskyist|Trot]] Slot')
*has "a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone."
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment
*promotes anti-American sentiment
*allows schedules to be "hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues"
*over-represents homosexuals
*over-represents ethnic minorities
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people
*fails to reflect concerns about pornography and family-unfriendly broadcasting (1960s Director General Hugh Carleton-Greene notoriously refused ever to meet broadcasting standards campaigner [[Mary Whitehouse]] and would commonly refer to her in opprobrious terms)
*allows itself to be used by "sinister" campaign groups
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world

[[Antony Jay]], a former producer on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme, said the BBC News and Current Affairs are part of the "liberal media consensus". Jay also said his ex-colleagues "were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/14114 Former BBC Producer Explains Why Media Are Liberally Biased], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], July 15, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&page=1 Here is the news (as we want to report it)], [[Telegraph]], July 15, 2007</ref>Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that "the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons." He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the "traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values."

A survey of BBC employees with profiles on the [[Facebook]] site showed that 11 times more of them class themselves as "[[liberal]]" than "[[conservative]]". <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/10/27/facebook-provides-fascinating-glimpse-society-media-demographics Facebook Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Society, Media Demographics], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], October 27, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490047&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490 Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed], Jane Merrick and Kirsty Walker, [[Daily Mail]], October 27, 2007</ref>

===Regional bias===
The BBC is based in [[London]], in the South East of England. It often faces accusations of being London-centric, with events in the North of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland having a reduced profile. A perceived disproportionately private school education is often claimed to be illustrated in the output, with a disproportionate emphasis on private school events and sports.

It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million<ref>[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]</ref> people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers<ref>[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]</ref><ref>[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]</ref>. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English<ref>[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]</ref>. In September 2008, the BBC launched BBC Alba, a [[Gaelic]] service consisting of a digital TV channel, a radio station and an online portal<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/alba/</ref>.

===Other===
BBC employees have changed [[Wikipedia]] entries, including a derogatory word in the entry for [[George W. Bush]] and changing the word “[[Terrorism|terrorists]]” to "[[freedom fighter]]s". <ref>[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669&only&rss Wikipedia EditGate: BBC Edits], [[LittleGreenFootballs]], August 15, 2007</ref>

The BBC cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/11982 BBC Cancels TV Movie On Iraq War Hero As 'Too Positive,' Would 'Alienate' War Opponents], Lynn Davidson, [[NewsBusters]], April 11, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq308.xml Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC], Chris Hastings, [[Telegraph]], July 4, 2007</ref>

The BBC funded a [[Paintball|paintballing]] trip for men later accused of [[Islamic terrorism]] and didn't pass on information about the 21/7 [[Terrorism|bombers]] to [[police]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/12/06/paintball-terrorists-bbc-paid-islamic-radical Paintball for Terrorists? BBC Paid for Islamic Radicals' Amusement], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], December 6, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499795&in_page_id=1770 BBC 'funded paintballing trip for Islamic terrorists and didn't pass on information about 21/7 bombers'], Daniel Bates, [[Daily Mail]], December 5, 2007</ref>

[[Pauline Neville Jones]], who is a member of [[United Kingdom|Britain's]] [[British_politics#Conservatives|Conservative party]], a former [[Espionage|spy]] chief and former BBC governor, accused the BBC of "parroting" [[Al Qaeda]] [[propaganda]] to [[children]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/09/29/bbc-still-blaming-u-s-9-11 BBC Still Blaming U.S. for 9/11], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], September 29, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484577&in_page_id=1770 BBC's Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief], James Chapman , [[Daily Mail]], September 29, 2007</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.
*[http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]
==Bibliography==
* Briggs, Asa, and Peter Burke. '' A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Media-Gutenberg-Internet/dp/0745623751/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom'' (Oxford University Press, 1961).
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume I: The Birth of Broadcasting'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Birth/dp/0192129260/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume II: The Golden Age of Wireless,'' (1995)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume III: The War of Words'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Words/dp/0192129562/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume IV: Sound & Vision'' (1979)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume V: Competition'' (1995)
* Crisell, Andrew ''An Introductory History of British Broadcasting.'' 2nd ed. London: Routledge. (2002)
* Nicholas, Siân. ''The Echo of War: Home Front Propaganda and the Wartime BBC, 1939-45.'' (1996) 307p.
* Hickman, Tom. ''What Did You Do in the War, Auntie? The BBC at War, 1939-45.'' (1995) 224p.
* Scannell, Paddy, and Cardiff, David. ''A Social History of British Broadcasting, Volume One, 1922-1939'' (Basil Blackwell, 1991).
* Smith, Anthony, and Richard Paterson. ''Television: An International History'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Television-International-History-Anthony-Smith/dp/0198159285/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197416369&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
* [http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]

[[Category:Broadcasters]][[Category:Television]][[Category:Radio]]

British Broadcasting Corporation

2011-07-19T02:14:03Z

WilliamB1: Andrew Marr is not an official spokesperson, he is a reporter/presenter for the BBC and was voicing his own opinions, not making an official statement on behalf of the BBC

<big>''"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"''-</big> Andrew Marr- BBC reporter.

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' (BBC) is the major national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is the largest broadcaster in the world by audience figures.

BBC was given a royal charter in 1927 as a public body; it replaced a private, commercially run British Broadcasting Company, which began in 1922. The royal charter and license, constitute the BBC as a public corporation with a mandate to provide broadcasting as a public service. BBC is funded by an annual license fee levied on all UK residents owning a television set regardless of income. The BBC's monopoly on lasted from 1922 until 1973 and the introduction of commercial radio. It monopolised television from 1936 to 1954, when the Television Act allowed for the establishment of commercial stations financed by spot advertising.

The BBC is criticised for political bias, particularly [[liberal]], and for being overly [[politically correct]] and overly supportive and selective in its coverage of the [[Labour Party]]. Analysts have accused the numerous extremist links to this BBC indicates a possible propaganda media network connection to [[Al Qaeda]]. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472430/WikiLeaks-Leaked-files-accuse-BBC-of-being-part-of-a-possible-propaganda-media-network.html BBC part of 'possible propaganda media network', Telegraphe UK, April 25, 2011]</ref>

== Broadcasting ==
The BBC operates eight national television channels (nine including the High-Definition service- BBC HD)[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are its regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.

The BBC produces many well-known television programmes, including ''The Ten O'Clock News'', ''Newsnight'', ''Question Time'', ''Eastenders'', ''Holby City'', ''Casualty'', ''Top Gear'', ''Match of the Day'', ''Have I Got News For You'' and ''Doctor Who''.

Its best known TV channels in the UK are BBC 1 and BBC 2. The other channels are broadcast as digital-only services and are available to owners of terrestrial digital receiving equipment. BBC 1 typically shows more mainstream programmes while BBC 2 has a reputation for more diversity and special interest content.

Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.

== Funding ==
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref> of £135.50 (about $250 ) per year. All owners of TV receiving equipment are obliged to pay the fee whether they watch BBC content or not. As such the license fee is often criticised as being a tax.

BBC programming is free of commercial advertising. However, it has some obligations to transmit statements by political parties and it advertises its own programmes. BBC channels transmitted in the UK are nevertheless free of commercial advertising - with the exception of sporting events, during which it is still permitted to display commercial advertising. Cricket matches were a previous source of contention as adverts projected onto the field of play are only visible to television viewers. This results in much greater non-advertising broadcasting time and uninterrupted broadcast of feature films. However, since the funding is determined by the government, the BBC can be slow to criticise those in power. This arrangement means the government has to do very little to apply pressure on the BBC and often the BBC will self regulate in favour of the government without any formal instruction being given.<ref>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5006.htm</ref> This in turn leads to the government and the BBC being able to declare independence and neutrality officially, while in reality this is far from the case.

Whilst there is a vocal campaign to have the BBC changed into a commercial company, this appears highly unlikely to happen.

== Ownership ==
The BBC is an independent body which is held in trust for the British people. The BBC was most recently given a ten-year royal charter in 2006 that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, free from commercial and government influence.

Control rests with the 12-person BBC Trust, which replaced the Board of Governors in 2007. Trust members are paid and are appointed by the British prime minister and are supposed to represent the interests of a broad cross-section of the British listening and viewing public. Day-to-day management is handled by the board of management, headed by the director general; its members are appointed by the board of governors.

==BBC News==
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/] It produces some 120 hours of news broadcasts daily.

News programmes are produced for both TV and radio stations. Much of the TV news programming is delivered in a few major news bulletins throughout the day, the most recognised of which is the flagship Ten O'Clock News in the evening on BBC1. On BBC radio, news is delivered in mostly smaller segments on the hour or half hour. However, the Today programme on Radio 4 is broadcast from 7am to 9am and is often considered the most influential news broadcast in the UK.

News produced by the BBC is made available and archived on the BBC news website.

==Internet==
The BBC has a news and archive website, one of the top twenty most popular English language websites. Like its TV and radio broadcasting it is not allowed to show advertising if the site is viewed from within the UK. This has prompted some criticism from within the BBC as it means funds from the licensing fee used for the website are not available for TV and radio programming. However, some costs of the site are now, since late 2007, offset by advertising to non-UK based visitors to the site.

Competitors have also criticised the BBC website due to its ability to fund itself non-commercially without advertising to the detriment of its commercial competitors such as on-line versions of national newspapers and other news broadcasters such as Sky and ITN.
==History==
From its inception in 1922, J. C. W. Reith, the first director-general of the BBC, envisioned the organisation as an integral advocate of patriotism and the empire at home.

===Second World War===
From June 1940 to March 1941, the writer J. B. Priestley (1894-1984), broadcast a widely popular series of Sunday-night radio talks, 'Postscripts to the News.' He became the best known, most gifted, and probably most popular BBC commentator, for he had caught the mood of the British people during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. His forced departure was controversial and harmful to the BBC. Priestley blamed Prime Minister Churchill's negative reaction to his left-wing views on postwar reconstruction. Actually his firing was mainly due to Ministry of Information and BBC reluctance to allow an extended forum to a 'demagogic' personality who might attract a personal following, as [[Father Coughlin]] had done in the United States in the 1930s. The upshot was employment of a wider range of speakers and careful avoidance of controversy.

The BBC played a major role in promoting the British Empire worldwide during [[World War II|The Second World War, 1939-45]]. The BBC became the voice of Britain, reflecting as well as constructing the nation's history, culture, and tradition. At first the BBC worked aggressively to deflect criticism and insure that the Empire appeared as a source of strength. It presented British imperialism as a benefit to both Britain and the colonised areas. However, as the war progressed and postwar objectives became a concern, the focus of the BBC expanded to include the importance of maintaining Britain as an imperial power.<ref> Thomas Hajkowski, "The BBC, the Empire, and the Second World War, 1939-1945," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 2002 22(2): 135-155 </ref>

Special programs were directed to peoples controlled by the Nazis; listening to the short-wave broadcasts was illegal but widespread. The German-language Austrian Service was directed by Patrick Smith, who emphasised the 'separateness' of Austria from Germany and on 'freedom and independence' as the Austrian goal. As victory approached the BBC stressed the need for Austrians themselves to take part in their own liberation. There were interviews with Austrian prisoners of war held in Britain.

Until 1944, broadcasts by the BBC's Hungarian service avoided describing the plight of the Jews in Hungary for fear that it would create an anti-Semitic backlash against one of the few Jewish populations in Europe which, though persecuted, was still allowed to live. Shortly after the Nazi occupation of Hungary in March 1944 the rounding up and deporting of Jews to death camps began. For the next four months, until Hungarian regent Horthy suspended the deportations, the Hungarian service repeatedly broadcast news of the deportation of Jews and urged Hungarians to obstruct, delay, and hinder the deportations in the name of humanity and Hungarian patriotism. Altering BBC Hungarian service policies regarding the Final Solution would perhaps have done little to slow the [[Holocaust]] in Hungary.<ref> Gabriel Milland, "The BBC Hungarian Service and the Final Solution in Hungary," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 1998 18(3): 353-373 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref> The BBC Home Service rarely mentioned the massacre of Jews for many reasons, including the restraints formally imposed by a government at war, the notions that such reports simply would not be believed (or, being incomprehensible, written off as propaganda) or might spur a latent anti-Semitism, and the fact that people were not interested in gloomy stories but wanted to hear about the war effort.<ref>Jeremy D. Harris, "Broadcasting the Massacres: an Analysis of the BBC's Contemporary Coverage of the Holocaust." ''Yad Vashem Studies'' 1996 25: 65-98 </ref>

===Cultural Impact===
====Monopoly years====
As the only TV broadcaster until the mid 1950s and only radio broadcaster until the mid 1970s, the BBC had a monopoly hold on British electronic media. As such its content was highly influential.

'Children's Hour', begun in the late 1920s, was intended as a medium for democracy and the production of exemplary citizens through the dissemination of idealised middle-class values. In time, this approach proved to be out of touch with the listening habits and working class context of many 'Children's Hour' listeners.

Music broadcasts for schools were begun in 1924, and did much to disseminate new ideas, especially through 'music and movement' programs and the enormously popular 'Singing Together' during the Second World War. However, the more formal programs, designed to teach the rudiments of music and notation, were less successful, and Sir Walford Davies's idea of tune building by children was abandoned in 1934. Radio's ability to teach music formally appeared severely limited, and serious doubts as to its precise function in relationship to music teachers were constantly voiced and never answered.<ref>Gordon Cox, "School Music Broadcasts and the BBC 1924-47," ''History of Education'' 1996 25(4): 363-371 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

Scottish broadcasters forged a unique and specifically Scottish tradition of radio programming in the 1920s, led by the Aberdeen studies of the BBC. However its role was weakened by a policy of centralisation in London after 1932. Radio drama based on collaboration with local theatre companies was especially strong, included much original work, and made a major contribution to the development of professional theatre in Scotland. The centralisation of radio broadcasting in London reflected the shift in the organisation of the British state toward greater involvement in the everyday lives of its citizens during the interwar years.<ref> Adrienne Scullion, "BBC Radio in Scotland, 1923-1939: Devolution, Regionalism and Centralisation." ''Northern Scotland'' 1995 15: 63-93 </ref>
====Competitive years====
Since the late 1970s the BBC, while exposed to high volumes and variable quality of competition, has remained popular with the British public and its cultural influence is still a major force. The BBC is considered the default choice by many when viewing major events such as breaking news or state occasions, even though competitors may be broadcasting the same content.

The BBC has had enormous influence over British attitudes to not just politics but also comedy, [[multiculturalism]], travel, natural history, international culture, popular trends, fashion and even the way the British speak. Through its foreign broadcasts on the BBC World Service, it has also had significant cultural influence outside the UK.

==Accusations of Bias==

The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of [[liberal bias]], it also receives accusations of cultural [[bias]], regional bias, [[political correctness]], bias towards multiculturalism and minority interests, as well as both pro- and anti-government bias.

The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.

While the BBC had been accused of bias many times in its history, a liberal bias became prevalent during the reign of Prime Minster [[Margaret Thatcher]], likely as a direct result of her government's efforts to streamline the corporation and make it more efficient. Before her reign, the BBC's overall ideology had fluctuated quite often between being pro-Conservative and pro-Liberal, mostly depending on which party was in power. Since Thatcher's reign though, it has been guilty of a quite pro-Liberal stance.

===Bias against the US and Israel===
Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the High Court of England and Wales. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible" and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.<ref>“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.</ref>

During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]]. At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.

On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism due to their apology over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.<ref>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull</ref> The incident is one of many examples of repeated and systematic anti-Israeli bias from the BBC over a number of years.

However, the BBC was also criticised by some for refusing to show a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza following the fighting in the region in December 2008 - January 2009. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4789700/BBC-Trust-chairman-attacks-politicians-over-Gaza-appeal-pressure.html</ref>

===Liberal bias===
Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report<ref>'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13530 BBC Report: Network’s Bias Due to 'The Inherent Liberal Culture of its Staff’], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], June 17, 2007</ref> - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:
*has an "institutional Left-wing bias" (its 'Play for Today' series in the 1960s/70s was known as the '[[Trotskyist|Trot]] Slot')
*has "a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone."
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment
*promotes anti-American sentiment
*allows schedules to be "hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues"
*over-represents homosexuals
*over-represents ethnic minorities
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people
*fails to reflect concerns about pornography and family-unfriendly broadcasting (1960s Director General Hugh Carleton-Greene notoriously refused ever to meet broadcasting standards campaigner [[Mary Whitehouse]] and would commonly refer to her in opprobrious terms)
*allows itself to be used by "sinister" campaign groups
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world

[[Antony Jay]], a former producer on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme, said the BBC News and Current Affairs are part of the "liberal media consensus". Jay also said his ex-colleagues "were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/14114 Former BBC Producer Explains Why Media Are Liberally Biased], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], July 15, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&page=1 Here is the news (as we want to report it)], [[Telegraph]], July 15, 2007</ref>Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that "the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons." He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the "traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values."

A survey of BBC employees with profiles on the [[Facebook]] site showed that 11 times more of them class themselves as "[[liberal]]" than "[[conservative]]". <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/10/27/facebook-provides-fascinating-glimpse-society-media-demographics Facebook Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Society, Media Demographics], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], October 27, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490047&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490 Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed], Jane Merrick and Kirsty Walker, [[Daily Mail]], October 27, 2007</ref>

===Regional bias===
The BBC is based in [[London]], in the South East of England. It often faces accusations of being London-centric, with events in the North of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland having a reduced profile. A perceived disproportionately private school education is often claimed to be illustrated in the output, with a disproportionate emphasis on private school events and sports.

It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million<ref>[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]</ref> people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers<ref>[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]</ref><ref>[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]</ref>. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English<ref>[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]</ref>. In September 2008, the BBC launched BBC Alba, a [[Gaelic]] service consisting of a digital TV channel, a radio station and an online portal<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/alba/</ref>.

===Other===
BBC employees have changed [[Wikipedia]] entries, including a derogatory word in the entry for [[George W. Bush]] and changing the word “[[Terrorism|terrorists]]” to "[[freedom fighter]]s". <ref>[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669&only&rss Wikipedia EditGate: BBC Edits], [[LittleGreenFootballs]], August 15, 2007</ref>

The BBC cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/11982 BBC Cancels TV Movie On Iraq War Hero As 'Too Positive,' Would 'Alienate' War Opponents], Lynn Davidson, [[NewsBusters]], April 11, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq308.xml Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC], Chris Hastings, [[Telegraph]], July 4, 2007</ref>

The BBC funded a [[Paintball|paintballing]] trip for men later accused of [[Islamic terrorism]] and didn't pass on information about the 21/7 [[Terrorism|bombers]] to [[police]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/12/06/paintball-terrorists-bbc-paid-islamic-radical Paintball for Terrorists? BBC Paid for Islamic Radicals' Amusement], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], December 6, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499795&in_page_id=1770 BBC 'funded paintballing trip for Islamic terrorists and didn't pass on information about 21/7 bombers'], Daniel Bates, [[Daily Mail]], December 5, 2007</ref>

[[Pauline Neville Jones]], who is a member of [[United Kingdom|Britain's]] [[British_politics#Conservatives|Conservative party]], a former [[Espionage|spy]] chief and former BBC governor, accused the BBC of "parroting" [[Al Qaeda]] [[propaganda]] to [[children]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/09/29/bbc-still-blaming-u-s-9-11 BBC Still Blaming U.S. for 9/11], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], September 29, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484577&in_page_id=1770 BBC's Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief], James Chapman , [[Daily Mail]], September 29, 2007</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.
*[http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]
==Bibliography==
* Briggs, Asa, and Peter Burke. '' A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Media-Gutenberg-Internet/dp/0745623751/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom'' (Oxford University Press, 1961).
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume I: The Birth of Broadcasting'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Birth/dp/0192129260/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume II: The Golden Age of Wireless,'' (1995)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume III: The War of Words'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Words/dp/0192129562/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume IV: Sound & Vision'' (1979)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume V: Competition'' (1995)
* Crisell, Andrew ''An Introductory History of British Broadcasting.'' 2nd ed. London: Routledge. (2002)
* Nicholas, Siân. ''The Echo of War: Home Front Propaganda and the Wartime BBC, 1939-45.'' (1996) 307p.
* Hickman, Tom. ''What Did You Do in the War, Auntie? The BBC at War, 1939-45.'' (1995) 224p.
* Scannell, Paddy, and Cardiff, David. ''A Social History of British Broadcasting, Volume One, 1922-1939'' (Basil Blackwell, 1991).
* Smith, Anthony, and Richard Paterson. ''Television: An International History'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Television-International-History-Anthony-Smith/dp/0198159285/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197416369&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
* [http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]

[[Category:Broadcasters]][[Category:Television]][[Category:Radio]]

Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?

2011-07-18T12:37:18Z

WilliamB1: /* NO */

{{debate}}

Should the United States defund scientific research?

== YES ==
Science has yet to fully explain many basic things, such as how gravity or magnets work. With a budget of $6.87 billion and so little to show for it and with the Bible being a rich and ready-made source of much [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge|scientific knowledge]], the US should completely defund all scientific research and use that money to fund other more immediate needs. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:19, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ummmm, I know how both gravity and magnetism work. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:20, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::You might have an idea about what science says this week, but science is always changing. Secular researchers really have no idea how they work. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Magnetism and gravity are very well understood forces. I think you are just pulling our legs. I am going to keep an eye on you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:39, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Please stick to the topic at hand. Should the United States Government be using taxpayer money to fund scientific research of dubious utility? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Who decides what is "scientific research of dubious utility"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well, Andrey Schlafly has labeled many areas of science as "junk science". [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 00:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::that doesn't really answer my question. And I would like to hear from the guy who thinks science can't explain magnetism. I suspect the user isn't who he claims. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:29, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I never said science can't explain magnetism, only that it hasn't and that the United States doesn't need to be wasting billions of taxpayer dollars researching it. Scientific research has lead to abortion, the racist theory of evolution and the acceptance of perversion. It exists to draw people away from the wisdom of Christ and towards the folly of man. I'm done with this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 01:55, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Magnets and gravity are so simple and so basic that a 5 year old could understand it (because I learned how they both work in *GASP* the evil public schools when I was 5). You don't understand how the scientific theory works and I'm not going to sit here and explain such a basic concept to a parodist. Or maybe you're not, you sound just like some of the sysops here. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 08:12, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== NO ==

Of course, you'd save millions in the short-term, but how do you think the USA became the largest national economy in the world?

And to point out that science hasn't discovered the answer to some questions, therefore it should be defunded is absolutely ludicrous and displays a complete ignorance of the scientific process. If you'd made the same argument 100 years ago you'd look like a bit of an idiot today with all the advances that have been made. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:36, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?

2011-07-18T12:36:55Z

WilliamB1:

{{debate}}

Should the United States defund scientific research?

== YES ==
Science has yet to fully explain many basic things, such as how gravity or magnets work. With a budget of $6.87 billion and so little to show for it and with the Bible being a rich and ready-made source of much [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge|scientific knowledge]], the US should completely defund all scientific research and use that money to fund other more immediate needs. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:19, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ummmm, I know how both gravity and magnetism work. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:20, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::You might have an idea about what science says this week, but science is always changing. Secular researchers really have no idea how they work. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:37, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Magnetism and gravity are very well understood forces. I think you are just pulling our legs. I am going to keep an eye on you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:39, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Please stick to the topic at hand. Should the United States Government be using taxpayer money to fund scientific research of dubious utility? --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Who decides what is "scientific research of dubious utility"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:13, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well, Andrey Schlafly has labeled many areas of science as "junk science". [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 00:25, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::that doesn't really answer my question. And I would like to hear from the guy who thinks science can't explain magnetism. I suspect the user isn't who he claims. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:29, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I never said science can't explain magnetism, only that it hasn't and that the United States doesn't need to be wasting billions of taxpayer dollars researching it. Scientific research has lead to abortion, the racist theory of evolution and the acceptance of perversion. It exists to draw people away from the wisdom of Christ and towards the folly of man. I'm done with this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 01:55, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Magnets and gravity are so simple and so basic that a 5 year old could understand it (because I learned how they both work in *GASP* the evil public schools when I was 5). You don't understand how the scientific theory works and I'm not going to sit here and explain such a basic concept to a parodist. Or maybe you're not, you sound just like some of the sysops here. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 08:12, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== NO ==

Of course, you'd save millions in the short-term, but how do you think the USA became the largest national economy in the world?

And to point out that science has discovered the answer to some questions, therefore it should be defunded is absolutely ludicrous and displays a complete ignorance of the scientific process. If you'd made the same argument 100 years ago you'd look like a bit of an idiot today with all the advances that have been made. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 08:36, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Why is England More Liberal than the United States?

2011-07-18T12:31:34Z

WilliamB1: /* The BBC */

Talk:Mystery:Why is England More Liberal than the United States?

2011-07-18T02:37:53Z

WilliamB1: /* The BBC */

Finland

2011-07-15T11:52:12Z

WilliamB1: Undo revision 889344 by Fgsfds (talk) vandalism

{{Country
|name =''Suomi'' ''Finland''
|map =Finland rel96.jpg
|map2 =Finland location.png
|flag =Flag of Finland.png
|arms =Arms of Finland.png
|capital =Helsinki
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy
|government-raw =
|language =Finnish, Swedish
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Tarja Halonen
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Mari Kiviniemi
|pm-raw =
|area =130,558 sq mi
|pop =5,296,128 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$193.491 billion (2005)
|gdp-pc =$40,197 (2005)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Republic of Finland''' (''Suomi'' or ''Suomen tasavalta'' in Finnish, ''Republiken Finland'' in Swedish) is a country of northern [[Europe]] known for its largely [[social democracy|social democratic]] economic system. The Finnish [[conservative]] party, the [[National Coalition]] led by [[Jyrki Katainen]], is its principal conservative organization.

The state capital is [[Helsinki]] and the principal exports are machines, electronics (for example cellphones) and forestry products. [[Finnish]] is the principal language spoken, a [[Finno-Ugric]] language. Like many nations that do international business, or have a strong tourist trade, many Finns speak English to facilitate communication with other countries. The second official language is Swedish, which has the same status as Finnish in the country. Finland is known as "the land of lakes".

==Geography==
[[File:Mantyluoto, Pori, Finland..jpg|thumb|left|Mäntyluoto, Pori.]]
The area of Finland is approximately 338 000 square kilometers, with a north-south axis of 890 kilometers. Most of the landscape is covered with lakes and forests. Finland is often called the "Land of Thousands of Lakes", which is true, because the number of lakes in the country exceeds 188 000, of which about 56 000 have an area of one hectare or more. In the sea there are more than 3 000 islands. Cultivated land and habitation only account for 17% of the land area, rest being mainly [[Norway spruce]] forests.

Finland is bound by [[Sweden]] in the Northwest, [[Norway]] in the North, [[Russia]] in the East, the [[Gulf of Finland]] in the South and the [[Gulf of Bothnia]] in the West.

==People==
*Population (September 2007): 5.29 million.
*Population growth rate (2006): 0.4%.
*Ethnic groups: Finns, Swedes, Lapps, Sami, Roma, Tatars.
*Religions: Lutheran 82.5%, Orthodox 1.1%.
*Languages: Finnish 91.5%, Swedish 5.5% (both official); small Lapp- (0.03%) and Russian-speaking (0.8%) minorities.
*Education: Years compulsory--9. Attendance--almost 100%. Literacy--almost 100%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--2.8/1,000 (2006). Life expectancy--males 75.8 yrs., females 82.8 yrs.
*Work force (2.65 million; of which 2.44 million are employed): Public services--32.8%; industry--19%; commerce--15.6%; finance, insurance, and business services--13.8%; agriculture and forestry--4.7%; transport and communications--7.4%; construction--6.7%.

===Culture===

[[File:Yyteri beach during Yyteri Beachfutis Finland.jpg|thumb|left|280px|Yyteri beach during Yyteri Beachfutis.]]
Finnish people (Finns) are known for their love of nature. Nature is prominent in the works of Finnish artists, such as [[Jean Sibelius]], [[Aki Kaurismäki]], [[Alvar Aalto]].

The great masters of Finnish literature include [[Mika Waltari]], [[Väinö Linna]], [[Johan Ludvig Runeberg]]. Finland is a bi-lingual country and has produced its literary heritage in both Finnish and Swedish. The beloved Moomintrolls were created by the writer and graphic artist Tove Jansson.

Another important facet of traditional Finnish culture is the love of the Finnish [[sauna]].

Northern Finland is home to a culture called the [[Sami people]], or [[Laplanders]], which are known for wearing red clothing and herding reindeer. Santa Claus is based on this culture.

They are considered a high context culture.
<div style="font-size: 80%">
{|class="wikitable" align=right border=1 style="border-collapse: collapse; margin-left: 10pt; margin-right: 1pt"
!colspan=4|Population of Finland, 1750–2000<ref>{{cite book | last=Aunesluoma | first=Juhana | coauthors=Heikkonen, Esko; Ojakoski, Matti | title=Lukiolaisen yhteiskuntatieto | language=Finnish | publisher=SanomaWSOY|WSOY | date=2006}}</ref>
|-
!Year!!Population!!Year!!Population
|-
||1750||align=right|421,000||1880||align=right|2,060,800
|-
||1760||align=right|491,000||1890||align=right|2,380,100
|-
||1770||align=right|561,000||1900||align=right|2,655,900
|-
||1780||align=right|663,000||1910||align=right|2,943,400
|-
||1790||align=right|705,600||1920||align=right|3,147,600
|-
||1800||align=right|832,700||1930||align=right|3,462,700
|-
||1810||align=right|863,300||1940||align=right|3,695,617
|-
||1820||align=right|1,177,500||1950||align=right|4,029,803
|-
||1830||align=right|1,372,100||1960||align=right|4,446,222
|-
||1840||align=right|1,445,600||1970||align=right|4,598,336
|-
||1850||align=right|1,636,900||1980||align=right|4,787,778
|-
||1860||align=right|1,746,700||1990||align=right|4,998,478
|-
||1870||align=right|1,768,800||2000||align=right|5,181,000
|}
</div>

 

===Population===
Finland currently numbers 5,302,778 inhabitants and has an average population density of 17 inhabitants per square kilometer. This makes it, after Norway and Iceland, the most sparsely populated country in Europe. Finland's population has always been concentrated in the southern parts of the country, a phenomenon even more pronounced after 20th century urbanization.

The share of foreign citizens in Finland is 2.5 percent being among the lowest of the European Union countries. Most of them are from Russia, Estonia and Sweden.

===Religion===
[[File:Helsinki Lutheran Cathedral Finland.jpg|thumb|left|Helsinki, Lutheran Cathedral.]]
Most Finns are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (81.7 percent). With approximately 4.6 million members, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is one of the largest Lutheran churches in the world. A minority belong to the Finnish Orthodox Church (1.1 percent; see [[Eastern Orthodox Church]]). Other Protestantism denominations and the Roman Catholic Church in Finland are significantly.

The main Lutheran and Orthodox churches are constitutional national churches of Finland with special roles such as in state ceremonies and schools. A university degree in theology is compulsory for Lutheran priests. Representatives at Lutheran Church assemblies are selected in church elections every four years.

Even though the membership in main Lutheran church is high, the population is not highly religious. Polls suggest that 28-60% of the population to be either agnostics or atheists. <ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref>

===Government===
====President and cabinet====
Elected for a 6-year term, the president:
*Handles foreign policy, except for certain international agreements and decisions of peace or war, which must be submitted to parliament, and EU relations, which are handled by the prime minister;
*Is commander in chief of the armed forces and has wide decree and appointive powers;
*May initiate legislation, block legislation by pocket veto, and call extraordinary parliamentary sessions; and
*Appoints the prime minister and the rest of the cabinet (Council of State). The Council of State is made up of the prime minister and ministers for the various departments of the central government as well as an ex officio member, the Chancellor of Justice. Ministers are not obliged to be members of the Eduskunta and need not be formally identified with any political party.
The president may, upon proposal of the prime minister and after having heard the parliamentary groups, order parliament to be dissolved, and a new election held.

====Parliament====
Constitutionally, the 200-member, unicameral Eduskunta is the supreme authority in Finland. It may alter the constitution, bring about the resignation of the Council of State, and override presidential vetoes; its acts are not subject to judicial review. Legislation may be initiated by the president, the Council of State, or one of the Eduskunta members.

The Eduskunta is elected on the basis of proportional representation. All persons 18 or older, except military personnel on active duty and a few high judicial officials, are eligible for election. The regular parliamentary term is 4 years; however, the president may dissolve the Eduskunta and order new elections at the request of the prime minister and after consulting the speaker of parliament.

====Judicial system====
The judicial system is divided between courts with regular civil and criminal jurisdiction and special courts, with responsibility for litigation between the public and the administrative organs of the state. Finnish law is codified. Although there is no writ of habeas corpus or bail, the maximum period of pretrial detention has been reduced to 4 days. The Finnish court system consists of local courts, regional appellate courts, a Supreme Court, and a Supreme Administrative Court.

====Administrative divisions====
[[File:Gulf of finland.jpg|thumb|Gulf of Finland.]]
Finland consists of five provinces and the self-ruled province of the Aland Islands. Below the provincial level, the country is divided into cities, townships, and communes administered by municipal and communal councils elected by proportional representation once every 4 years. At the provincial level, the five mainland provinces are administered by provincial boards composed of civil servants, each headed by a governor. The boards are responsible to the Ministry of the Interior and play a supervisory and coordinating role within the provinces.

The island province of Aland is located near the 60th parallel between Sweden and Finland. It enjoys local autonomy and demilitarized status by virtue of an international convention of 1921, implemented most recently by the Act on Aland Self-Government of 1951. The islands are further distinguished by the fact that they are entirely Swedish-speaking. Government is vested in the provincial council, which consists of 30 delegates elected directly by Aland's citizens.

====Military====
Finland's defense forces consist of 35,000 persons in uniform (26,000 army; 5,000 navy; and 4,000 air force). The country's defense budget equals about 1.3% of GDP. There is universal male conscription under which all men serve from six to 12 months. As of 1995, women were permitted to serve as volunteers. A reserve force ensures that Finland can field 490,000 trained military personnel in case of need.

====Political parties====
Finland's proportional representation system encourages a multitude of political parties and has resulted in many coalition governments. Political activity by communists was legalized in 1944, and although four major parties have dominated the postwar political arena, none now has a majority position. In elections held in 2007, the Center Party (Keskusta), traditionally representing rural interests, kept its position as the biggest party. The then-opposition Conservative Party, however, came away as the biggest winner, gaining 10 seats and becoming the second-largest political party in the country. The Center then formed a four-party governing coalition with the Conservatives and the Swedish People's Party and the Greens. The Social Democratic Party (SDP) suffered a defeat in these elections and fell to the third position among the big parties. Of the other parties, the True Finns, the Green League, and the Swedish People’s Party were able to gain seats in parliament. The Conservative Party received the portfolios of foreign minister, finance minister, and defense minister, among others, and became an important player after a long interval.

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:Tarja Halonen 2003.jpg|thumb|Tarja Halonen, 2003.]]
*President--[[Tarja Halonen]]
*Prime Minister--Mari Kiviniemi
*Foreign Minister--Alexander Stubb
*Ambassador to the United States--Pekka Lintu
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Kirsti Lintonen

{{Clear}}

===Foreign Relations===
Finland's basic foreign policy goal from the end of the Continuation War with the U.S.S.R. in 1944 until 1991 was to avoid great-power conflicts and to build mutual confidence with the Soviet Union. Although the country was culturally, socially, and politically Western, Finns realized they must live in peace with the U.S.S.R. and take no action that might be interpreted as a security threat. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 opened up dramatic new possibilities for Finland and has resulted in the Finns actively seeking greater participation in Western political and economic structures. Finland joined the European Union in 1995.

====Previous relations with the Soviet Union, and today with Russia====
[[File:Uspenski cathedral Helsinki.jpg|thumb|The Uspenski cathedral of Helsinki; with its golden cumpolas and redbrick façade, the cathedral is one of the clearest symbol of the Russian impact on Finnish history.]]
The principal architect of the post-1944 foreign policy of neutrality was J.K. Paasikivi, who was President from 1946 to 1956. Urho Kekkonen, President from 1956 until 1981, further developed this policy, stressing that Finland should be an active rather than a passive neutral. This policy is now popularly known as the "Paasikivi-Kekkonen Line."

Finland and the U.S.S.R. signed a peace treaty at Paris in February 1947 limiting the size of Finland's defense forces and providing for the cession to the Soviet Union of the Petsamo area on the Arctic coast, the Karelian Isthmus in southeastern Finland, and other territory along the former eastern border. Another provision, terminated in 1956, leased the Porkkala area near Helsinki to the U.S.S.R. for use as a naval base and gave free access to this area across Finnish territory.

The 1947 treaty also called for Finland to pay to the Soviet Union reparations of 300 million gold dollars (amounting to an estimated $570 million in 1952, the year the payments ended). Although an ally of the Soviet Union in World War II, the United States was not a signatory to this treaty because it had not been at war with Finland.

In April 1948, Finland signed an Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance with the Soviet Union. Under this mutual assistance pact, Finland was obligated--with the aid of the Soviet Union, if necessary--to resist armed attacks by Germany or its allies against Finland or against the U.S.S.R. through Finland. At the same time, the agreement recognized Finland's desire to remain outside great-power conflicts. This agreement was renewed for 20 years in 1955, in 1970, and again in 1983 to the year 2003, although the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union led to the agreement's abrogation.

The Finns responded cautiously in 1990-91 to the decline of Soviet power and the U.S.S.R.'s subsequent dissolution. They unilaterally abrogated restrictions imposed by the 1947 and 1948 treaties, joined in voicing Nordic concern over the coup against Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, and gave increasing unofficial encouragement to Baltic independence.

At the same time, by replacing the Soviet-Finnish mutual assistance pact with treaties on general cooperation and trade, Finns put themselves on an equal footing while retaining a friendly bilateral relationship. Finland now is boosting cross-border commercial ties and touting its potential as a commercial gateway to Russia. It has reassured Russia that it will not raise claims for Finnish territory seized by the U.S.S.R. and continues to reaffirm the importance of good bilateral relations.

====Multilateral Relations====
Finnish foreign policy emphasizes its participation in multilateral organizations. Finland joined the United Nations in 1955 and the EU in 1995. As noted, the country also is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Partnership for Peace as well as a member in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. As a NATO partner, Finland had 100 troops in Afghanistan as of September 2007.

Finland is well represented in the UN civil service in proportion to its population and belongs to several of its specialized and related agencies. Finnish troops have participated in UN peacekeeping activities since 1956, and the Finns continue to be one of the largest per capita contributors of peacekeepers in the world. Finland is an active participant in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and in early 1995 assumed the co-chairmanship of the OSCE's Minsk Group on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Cooperation with the other Scandinavian countries also is important to Finland, and it has been a member of the Nordic Council since 1955. Under the council's auspices, the Nordic countries have created a common labor market and have abolished immigration controls among themselves. The council also serves to coordinate social and cultural policies of the participating countries and has promoted increased cooperation in many fields.

In addition to the organizations already mentioned, Finland became a member of the following organizations: Bank for International Settlements, 1930; International Monetary Fund, 1948; International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 1948; General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 1950; International Finance Corporation, 1956; International Development Association, 1960; European Free Trade Association, 1961; Asian Development Bank, 1966; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1969; Inter-American Development Bank, 1977; African Development Bank, 1982; Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, 1988; the Council of Europe, 1989; European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in Central and Eastern Europe, 1991; World Trade Organization, 1995; and INTELSAT, 1999. Finland entered Stage Three of EMU (the European Monetary Union) in 1999. All the Nordic countries, including Finland, joined the Schengen area in March 2001.

==Economy==
[[File:Logs in Yyteri 2009.JPG|thumb|left|300px|Logs in Yyteri.]]
Finland has an industrial economy based on abundant forest resources, capital investments, and high technology.

The Finnish economy has made enormous strides since the severe recession of the early 1990s. Finland successfully joined the euro zone and has outperformed euro-area partners in terms of economic growth and public finance. In the last few years, the Finnish economy has performed reasonably well. Total output was 5% higher in 2006 than in 2005, but economic activity leveled off in the latter half of the year. GDP is predicted to grow by 4.4% in 2007, while 2008 is likely to show a slower rate of growth, estimated at 3.3%. Despite the current favorable outlook, there is a degree of uncertainty in the Finnish economy caused by the large fluctuations in electronics industry production, together with resource constraints. Cost and price pressures have increased, and there is a threat of industry’s price competitiveness starting to weaken.

Unemployment decreased significantly from 1994 to 7.7% in 2006 and is expected to drop to 6.7% in 2007. A relatively inflexible labor market and high employer-paid social security taxes hamper growth in employment. Labor bottlenecks are becoming more common in certain sectors, and this will increasingly restrict growth in output in the future. The main constraint to medium-term economic growth will be the drop in the population of working age once the post-war baby boomers reach retirement age.
[[File:Headquarters of Nokia Keilaniemi Finland..jpg|thumb|The headquarters of Nokia Corporation in Keilaniemi, Espoo, 2005.]]
Exports of goods and services contribute 32% of Finland's GDP. Metals and engineering (including electronics) and timber (including pulp and paper) are Finland's main industries. The United States is Finland's third most important trading partner outside of Europe. With a 3.8% share of imports in 2006, the United States was Finland's seventh-largest supplier. The total value of U.S. exports to Finland in 2006 was $2.6 billion. Major exports from the United States to Finland continue to be machinery, telecommunications equipment and parts, aircraft and aircraft parts, computers, peripherals and software, electronic components, chemicals, medical equipment, and some agricultural products. The primary competition for American companies comes from Russia, Germany, Sweden, and China. The main export items from Finland to the United States are electronics, machinery, ships and boats, paper and paperboard, refined petroleum products, telecommunications equipment and parts. In 2006, the United States was Finland's fourth-largest customer after Germany (11.3%), Sweden (10.5%), and Russia (10.1%), with an export share of 6.5%, or $5 billion. However, trade is only part of the totality: the 10 biggest Finnish companies in the United States have a combined turnover that is three times the value of Finland's total exports to the United States. About 2.3% of the Finnish GDP comes from exports to the United States.

Except for timber and several minerals, Finland depends on imported raw materials, energy, and some components for its manufactured products. Farms tend to be small, but farmers own sizable timber stands that are harvested for supplementary income in winter. The country's main agricultural products are dairy, meat, and grains. Finland's EU accession has accelerated the process of restructuring and downsizing of this sector.
*GDP: $210.8 billion (EUR 167.9 billion).
*GDP growth rate: 5%.
*Per capita income: $40,036 (EUR 31,886).
*Inflation rate: 1.6% (2006 average); 2.6% (September 2007).
*Natural resources: Forests, minerals (copper, zinc, iron), farmland.
*Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (2.9% of GDP): Products--meat (pork and beef), grain (wheat, rye, barley, oats), dairy products, potatoes, rapeseed.
*Industry (30.1% of GDP): Types--metal (including electronics and electrical equipment) and engineering, forest products, chemicals, shipbuilding, foodstuffs, textiles.
*Trade: Exports--$77.08 billion. Major markets--EU 56.9%, Russia 10.1%, U.S. 6.5%, China 3.2%. Imports--$68.9 billion. Major suppliers--EU 55.3%, Russia 14.1%, China 7.5%, U.S. 3.8%.

==History==
[[File:Johan Ludvig Runeberg statue Finland.jpg|thumb|left|Johan Ludvig Runeberg statue.]]
The origins of the Finnish people are still a matter of conjecture, although many scholars argue that their original home was in what is now west-central [[Siberia]]. The Finns arrived in their present territory thousands of years ago, pushing the indigenous Lapps into the more remote northern regions. Finnish and Lappish--the language of Finland's small Lapp minority--both are Finno-Ugric languages and are in the Uralic rather than the Indo-European family.

Finland's nearly 700-year association with the Kingdom of [[Sweden]] began in 1154 with the introduction of Christianity by Sweden's King Eric. During the ensuing centuries, Finland played an important role in the political life of the Swedish-Finnish realm, and Finnish soldiers often predominated in Swedish armies. Finns also formed a significant proportion of the first "Swedish" settlers in 17th-century America.

Following Finland's incorporation into Sweden in the 12th century, Swedish became the dominant language, although Finnish recovered its predominance after a 19th-century resurgence of Finnish nationalism. Publication in 1835 of the Finnish national epic, The Kalevala--a collection of traditional myths and legends--first stirred the nationalism that later led to Finland's independence from Russia.

In 1809, Finland was conquered by the armies of Czar Alexander I and thereafter remained an autonomous grand duchy connected with the Russian Empire until the end of 1917. On December 6, 1917, shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Finland declared its independence. In 1918, the country experienced a brief but bitter civil war that colored domestic politics for many years. During [[World War II]], Finland fought the [[Soviet Union]] twice--in the [[Winter War]] of 1939-40 and again in the [[Continuation War]] of 1941-44. This was followed by the [[Lapland War]] of 1944-45, when Finland fought against the Germans as they withdrew their forces from northern Finland.

During the Continuation War (1941-1944) Finland was a co-belligerent with [[Germany]]. However, Finnish Jews were not persecuted. Of the approximately 500 Jewish refugees who arrived in Finland, eight were handed over to the Germans, for which Finland submitted an official apology in 2000.<ref>[http://www.uta.fi/~tuulikki.vuonokari/fin-1.html Jews in Finland During World War II]</ref> Also during the war, approximately 2,600 Soviet prisoners of war were exchanged for 2,100 Finnish prisoners of war from Germany. In 2003, the Simon Wiesenthal Center submitted an official request for a full-scale investigation by the Finnish authorities of the prisoner exchange. It was established there were about 70 Jews among the extradited prisoners but none was extradited as a result of ethnic background or religious belief.

Treaties signed in 1947 and 1948 with the Soviet Union included obligations and restraints on Finland vis-a-vis the U.S.S.R. as well as territorial concessions by Finland; both have been abrogated by Finland since the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union.

{{Template:Copyright Details (US Government)}}

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Finland]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Nordic Countries]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]

Nazi Party

2011-07-15T11:51:38Z

WilliamB1: Undo revision 889345 by Fgsfds (talk) vandalism

[[Image:Flag of Nazi Germany.png|thumb|200px|'''The flag of Nazi Germany''' featuring the notorious reverse swastika]]
The '''Nazi Party''' ('''NSDAP''', formally the ''Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei'' or in English ''National Socialist German Workers' Party''<ref> "Nazi" comes from the first word in the party's name, '''Na'''tionalso'''zi'''alistische.
</ref>) was a totalitarian movement and party in [[Germany]] from 1919-1945. It was controlled after 1922 by [[Adolf Hitler]]. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany and took control of the government and most sectors of Germany's society and economy. The Nazi regime in Germany 1933-45 called itself the '''[[Third Reich]].''' The Nazis rearmed Germany, conquered the neighbors, murdered six million Jewish civilians and an estimated 15 million other 'undesirables' in the [[Holocaust]] and was finally destroyed in [[World War II]] by the [[Allies]] (the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union, along with smaller countries). Like Hitler, the Nazis have become synonymous with evil in the modern world.

The socialism Hitler advocated is much closer to that of Soviet [[communism]] than liberals are willing to admit, or than many people realize,<ref>[http://mises.org/story/1937 Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian] - George Reisman - Mises Institute.</ref> especially those who think in terms of "[[right wing]]" and "[[left wing]]" politics.

==Foundations==

[[Adolf Hitler]] exploited the myth of the “Stab in the Back,” the belief that the [[World War I]] had been lost because “disloyal” elements within Germany – [[Jews]] and [[Marxism|Marxists]] – had undermined the war effort. As [[William Shirer]] put it in ''The Rise and Fall of the [[Third Reich]]'',

<blockquote>
"To him, as to almost all Germans, it was ‘monstrous’ and undeserved. The German army had not been defeated in the field. It had been stabbed in the back by the traitors at home.

Thus emerged for [[Hitler]], as or so many Germans, a fanatical belief in the legend of the ‘stab in the back’ which, more than anything else, was to undermine the Weimar Republic and pave the way for Hitler’s ultimate triumph.”
<ref name=rise>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book One, “The Rise of Adolf Hitler.” </ref>
</blockquote>

The origin of the Nazi Party itself was a small group called The German Workers' Party, founded by a locksmith named Anton Drexler who, in 1918, had set up a “Committee of Independent Workmen” in reaction to the [[Marxism]] of the free trade unions.<ref name=rise /> A year later The German Workers Party was formed when this merged with another group, the Political Workers' Circle. <ref>Shoah Resource Center, http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205946.pdf </ref> <ref>Germanculture.com, http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/weekly/aa012400b.htm</ref>

It was Adolf Hitler, who joined the party and was put in charge of propaganda in 1920, who transformed this small group into what we now know as the Nazi Party through his great skill in politics and public speaking. That same year the words “National Socialist” were added to the party name and it became “The National Socialist German Workers Party” (NSDAP). The Storm Troopers (Sturmabteilung, [[Brownshirts|SA]]) in their distinctive brown uniforms, were organized first to kick out hecklers at Nazi meetings, then to break up the meetings of other parties. The hakenkreuz (literally: ''hooked cross''), or the [[swastika]], was adopted in the party’s flag. By the following summer, Hitler himself had taken over as leader (de: Führer) of the party.

*Here we have the core of Nazism: (i) a very strong dose of German anti-semitism (with a paranoid belief in a conspiracy between Jewish financiers who control the capitalist economy and steal from the Germans, Jewish liberal intellectuals who preach humanism and enfeeble the Germans, and Jewish communists who seek to enslave the Germans; (ii) a belief in the German nation and the "aryan" German race as an entity with a special, heroic destiny; (iii) war as the ultimate test of national strength and worth; and (iv) conquest--with extermination or removal of the resident population--to create more "living space" or the German people and larger fields for the German farmers. Add to this (a) the "leadership principle"--a hatred of parliamentary institutions, and a belief that a good political order sees an inspired leader giving people vision and commands (rather than see parliamentarians haggle and compromise on behalf of interest groups)--(b) the use of terror to obtain obedience, and (c) the desire to make sure that all of society's organizations serve the national cause, and you have Nazism. <ref>http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Alternatives12.html</ref>

==Anti-Semitism==

The Nazis were highly [[Anti-Semitism|anti-Semitic]] and blamed the Jews for many of the problems in Germany, such as the defeat in [[World War I]].
The Nazis passed the [[Nuremberg Laws]] in 1935 which stated that:
* Young German women could not work for Jews in the domestic services.
* Jews were no longer citizens of Germany (this meant that they had no protection from the police and so were susceptible to attack)
* Jewish doctors were not allowed to treat Germans/Aryans
* Jews could not marry Germans/Aryans
They made laws against Jews ("Rassengesetze", ''race laws'') which places successively tighter restrictions on the rights of Jews to own property, use public services, live in some areas, enter public spaces and eventually required Jews wear a [[Star of David]] on their clothing.
The Jews were mistreated, persecuted, and killed by the Nazis.
The Nazi state also persecuted other political opponents, such as [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]. State-run hospitals secretly euthanized the very old, the sick, mentally ill and the disabled. [[homosexuality|Homosexuals]]<ref>Hans Peter Bleuel, ''Sex and Society in Nazi Germany'', (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1973).</ref>came under increasing scrutiny and persecution in the later years of the regime.
The Nazis exterminated at least 11 million civilians by rounding them up, transporting them to concentration camps and then murdering them there. About 6 million of these were Jews (see [[Holocaust]]).

==Religion==
Nazis rejected Christianity as spoiled by Judaism, but did support a new pro-Nazi Protestant church that had a few followers. The Nazis tried to minimize the influence of Protestant and Catholic churches, while promoting as pre-Christian German paganism. Adolf Hitler was raised Roman Catholic as a youth, but he began to despise the church and all of Christianity as too pacifist or a "religion for weaklings".

=== Alfred Rosenberg ===

Dr. Alfred Rosenberg, the party's official philosopher, announced the philosophic basis of the Nazi campaign. In his ''The Myth of the Twentieth Century'' he scorns the Old Testament, and while he takes Jesus more seriously, he concludes,<ref>Time (Sept 03, 1934)</ref>
:The religion of Jesus was undoubtedly the preaching of love . . . but the German religious movement, which wishes to develop into a people's church, must declare that it unconditionally subordinates the ideal of neighborly love to the ideal of national honor . . . The churches, handed over to it again, will, little by little, put the fiery spirit of the hero . . . in place of the crucifixion."

The outspoken pagan Rosenberg drew up a thirty-point program for the ''National Reich Church'', created in 1936, which contains the following statements,

*"The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.
*"The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably...the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800...
*"The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.
*"The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany...'"
*"On the altars there must be nothing but 'Mein Kampf' (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.
*"On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels...and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika."<ref>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William L. Shirer, P. 240</ref>

When a Manchester Guardian correspondent attended a Berlin meeting of the German People's Church, he found it a noisy, enthusiastic, a theological free-for-all. One Dr. Krause exclaimed, "The lives and utterances of great Germans must be considered equal to the Bible as revelations..."

=== Pagan cults ===

Throughout Germany strange little pagan cults were seen to arise, such as the pantheistic Nordic Religious Community.

Youth Leader Hartmann-Lautenbacher stated, "Besides the rock of Jesus Christ there is another: Adolf Hitler. It remains to be seen which of the two is stronger. On the one sit the old women. On the other stands the young generation."

Youth Press Agent August Hoppe exhorted war against Christianity, and a return to pagan roots.

Similar to what some see today in the West, Youth Leader Joachim Benedicte stated, "...The religious faith of the German people must be decided by political elements, the Storm Troops and the Hitler Youth."<ref>Religion: Nazis v. Jesus Christ, Time. 9-03-1934</ref>

As in Communism, the State, or ''Fatherland'' came to be deified, in the name of which Hitler justified his autocratic decision to kill - for political purposes - a large number of S.A. leaders while they were at a resort, during the "Night of the Long Knives."

Rather than initially attacking Christian faith outright, the Nazi party promoted itself as "positive Christianity," and vigorously opposed what they call "negative Christianity", both terms being Nazi inventions which could mean whatever the local Nazi leader chooses them to mean. In their Manifesto of their "anxieties and fears", the German Evangelical Church quoted Rosenberg as saying, "The general ideas of the Roman and of the Protestant churches are negative Christianity and do not, therefore, accord with our soul." The Manifesto concludes: "When, within the compass of the Nazi view of life, an anti-Semitism is forced on the Christian that binds him to hatred of the Jew, the Christian injunction to love one's neighbor still stands...The Evangelical conscience is most heavily burdened by the fact that there are still concentration camps in Germany that describes itself as a country in which Justice is administered..."<ref>Time magazine, Aug. 10, 1936, Foreign News: Churchmen to Hitler</ref>

=== Religious persecution ===

Overall however, the spiritual condition of Germany may be seen to have been weak by and during the time of Hitler's rise to power. Protestant churches in Germany had become largely institutionalized, and its power to effect political change decreased. The Catholic Institution had been pressured into a Concordant with Hitler, which the latter continually broke. Loyalties were torn as [[national socialism]] became the cause, and churches were pressured to submit to its ethos.<ref>''A history of national socialism, Cross against Swastika'', by Konrad Heiden</ref><ref>''Pius XII and the Nazis'', by Darlene Shelton</ref>Jews were overall seen negatively, stubborn and ungrateful.<ref>''Martin Luther and "The Jews" A Reappraisal'', by Dr. Christopher Probst</ref> After their rise to power the Nazis sought to purge the national German Evangelical Church of converted Jews, as well to make the church ideologically submissive to the state. By entertaining the Nazi doctrine of Aryan racial superiority and persecution of Jews, they militated against the authoritative position of the Scriptures. Largely in reaction to such the [[Confessing Church]] emerged. This Protestant church was not recognized by the Nazi's, and was persecuted and finally forced underground, as many members and leaders, such as [[Martin Niemöller]], were particularly active in protesting against euthanasia and the persecution of the Jews.<ref>The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2008; Confessing Church</ref><ref>Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009, Confessing Church</ref>

Measures taken against the Christian Churches were an integral part of [[National Socialism]]. An [[OSS]] report to the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]] Stated,
:"The Nazi conspirators, by promoting beliefs and practices incompatible with Christian teaching, sought to subvert the influence of the Churches over the people and in particular over the youth of Germany. They avowed their aim to eliminate the Christian Churches in Germany and sought to substitute therefore Nazi institutions and Nazi beliefs and pursued a programme of persecution of priests, clergy and members of monastic orders whom they deemed opposed to their purposes and confiscated Church property."<ref>Claire Hulme & Dr. Michael Salter, [http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/RJLR_3_1_2.pdf ''The Nazi's Persecution as a War Crime: The OSS Response Within the Nuremeberg Trial's Process''], Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, n.d.</ref>

Though Christians sometime hold Hitler to be an atheist, and atheists often assert he was a Christian, the best evidence shows him to be neither, in particular failing to be the latter, especially in the Biblical sense of the word (being both the source and most authoritative definition of it). In contrast, evidence reveals that while Hitler shared with many atheists a dramatically skewed idea of what Christianity is, and or made political use of the term, he was quite the contrary to being a Christian.<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Holocaust-Bible-Scriptural-Anti-Semitism/dp/0982277601 Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Bible: A Scriptural Analysis..., by Joe Keysor]</ref>

The resource site Adherents.com states,

There is no question that Hitler was a Nazi. Nazism was clearly his most important religious affiliation, not in the positive way the word “religion” is often defined, but in the general sense that any philosophy or belief system which is most important in a person’s life is that person’s “religion,” regardless of whether or not it is universally labelled as a “religion.” Hitler was also born into a Catholic family, but he rejected Catholicism and in most ways he rejected Christianity in general. On occasion we have read people claim that “Hitler was a Catholic” or “Hitler was a Christian” in a meaningful way, implying that Christianity or Catholicism was the primary impetus for his Nazi reign. Such claims are simply vitriolic attacks occasionally voiced by ideologically-inclined anti-Christian, anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi people. Historians agree that Hitler was pointedly anti-Christian. We are not aware of any published sources from acknowledged academic historians or writers that identify Adolf Hitler as significantly Catholic or Christian in his motivations as an adult.”<ref>http://www.adherents.com/people/ph/Adolf_Hitler.html</ref>

=== Hossbach Memorandum ===

In the Hossbach Memorandum, Hitler blamed Christianity for the fall of Rome (rather than such being a judgment due to its degradation, and persecution of Christians and its message), stating: "It was only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age which appear in every country, which caused ancient Rome to succumb to the onslaught of the Germans." <ref>[http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/hossbach.asp]</ref>

Additionally, Albert Speer records that Hitler lamented, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion." and that Islam would have more compatible for them than Christianity.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=XLSa_RIDHMUC&dq=Albert+Speer,+Inside+the+Third+Reich,&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=551HSrzDDcm0twf6x7TbBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5 Inside the Third Reich, p. 96]</ref>

In another statement attributed to Hitler, he predicts, “I’m going to become a religious figure. Soon I’ll be the great chief of the Tartars. Already Arabs and Moroccans are mingling my name with their prayers.”<ref>Adolf Hitler, cited in Waite, Robert, Adolf Hitler: The Psychopathic God (NY: Basic Books, 1977) p. 261) (Lutzer, pp. 62-63.)</ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2132855/posts?page=101#101]

=== Hitler's Table Talk ===

Clear but disputable evidence reveals Hitler as promoting a form of paganism, which the Nazi party clearly sought to promote. ''Hitler's Table Talk'' is a series of informal, private conversations among Hitler and his closest associates, as recorded by (anti-Catholic) Martin Bormann. The ex tempore remarks excerpted below are attributed to Hitler:<ref>Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953</ref>

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941

*"[[National Socialism]] and religion cannot exist together....

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....

*"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday

*"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday

*"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....

*"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity <is> the liar...

*"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night

*"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

21st October, 1941, midday

*"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....

*"The decisive falsification of Jesus' [who he asserts many times was never a Jew] doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....

*"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunized against the disease." (p 118-119)

14th December, 1941, midday

*"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....

*"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner

*"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday

*"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)

Miscellaneous other quotes include,

*"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it."

*"Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline."

*"We'll see to it that the churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth."

*"Indeed, it's most important that the higher belief should be well established in them before the lower belief has been removed. We must finally achieve this."

*"We do not want to educate anyone in atheism."

*"The observatory I'll have built at Linz, on the Pöstlingberg, I can see it in my mind ... In future, thousands of excursionists will make a pilgrimage there every Sunday. They'll thus have access to the greatness of our universe. The pediment will bear this motto: 'The heavens proclaim the glory of the everlasting.' It will be our way of giving men a religious spirit, of teaching them humility — but without the priests."

*"The final state must be: in St. Peter's Chair, a senile officiant; facing him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and as poor in spirit as anyone could wish."

*"For my part, in his place [the Duce] I'd have taken the path of revolution. I'd have entered the Vatican and thrown everybody out — reserving the right to apologize later: 'Excuse me, it was a mistake!' But the result would have been, they'd have been outside!"
[[Image:Nazi.jpg|thumb|right|250px|"With our flags is our victory"]]
*"But a pope, even a criminal one, who protects great artists and spreads beauty around him, is nevertheless more sympathetic to me than the protestant minister who drinks from the poisoned spring."

*"I have six Divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn't prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls."

*"The soul and the mind migrate, just as the body returns to nature. Thus life is eternally reborn from life. As for the 'why' of all that, I feel no need to rack my brains on the subject. The soul is unplumbable."<ref>Hitler on Religion: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/religion.htm</ref>

Hitler, much like atheists, is seen to not only have scorned corruptions of Christian faith, but the whole faith as well. Having loosed himself from the moral authority of the Bible (though misappropriating it's "badge" at times for his own purposes) he was much free to be guided by his own "golden compass", which is ultimately the atheistic basis for determining morality. Tragically however, while an innate sense of right can be right, Hitler's compass pointed south rather than north.

==Economic planning==

[[James Burnham]], a former [[Trotskyite]] who served with the [[Office of Strategic Services]] (OSS) during the World War II and later contributed to the ''[[National Review]]'', described the Nazi regime's [[economic planning]]. Burnham pointed out how the original "workers revolution" of [[Marxism]] had in fact become a managerial revolution in all societies were Socialism had been embraced. Writing in 1940, Burnham noted,

{{Cquote|Outright state ownership and operation, advancing in all fields, are particularly ascendant in the extensive areas of new enterprise opened up during the Nazi rule....virtually all economic enterprise is subject to rigid state control; and it is control which we have seen to be decisive in relation to the instruments of production. Legal forms, even income privileges, are in the end subordinate to ''de facto'' control.

Even where private owners still exist in Germany, the decisions about "their" property are not in their hands. They do not decide what to make or not to make. They do not establish prices or bargain about wages. They are not at liberty to buy the raw materials they might choose nor to seek the most profitable markets. They cannot, as a rule, decide how to invest or not invest their surplus funds. In short, they are no longer owners, no longer effective [[capitalist]]s...

The regulation of production in Germany is no longer left to the market. What is to be produced, and how much, is decided, deliberately, by groups of men, by the state boards and bureaus and commissions. It is they that decide whether a new plant shall be built or an old plant retired, how raw materials shall be allotted and orders distributed, what quotas must be fulfilled by various branches of industry, what goods shall be put aside for export, how prices shall be fixed and credit and exchange extended. There is no requirement that these decisions of the bureaus must be based on any profit aim in the capitalist sense. If it is thought expedient, for whatever reason, to produce, for example, an ersatz rubber or wool or food, this will be done even if the production entails, from a capitalist point of view, a heavy loss. Similarly, in order to accumulate foreign exchange or to stimulate some political effect in a foreign nation, goods will be exported regardless of loss. A factory may be compelled to shut down, even though it could operate at a high profit. Banks and individuals are forced to invest their funds with no reference to the private and voluntary opinions about "risks" from a profit standpoint. It is literally true to say that the Nazi economy, already, is not a "profit economy."

The workers, on their side, are no longer the "free proletarians" of capitalism. Under Nazism the workers are indeed, free from unemployment. At the same time they cannot, as individuals or through their own independent organizations, bargain for wages or change jobs at will. They are assigned to their tasks, and their labor conditions are fixed, by the decisions of the state bureaus and commissions. Millions of them are allotted to the vast state enterprises. ...With the reduction in the area of private enterprise and the increase of state enterprise, goes also a corresponding reduction in the social position of the private capitalists. So far as control over the instruments of production goes, the capitalists are already near the bottom. As to income privilege: a recent estimate by a New York statistician gives as a mere 5% the share of the German national income going to profits and interest. This is a substantial reduction from the 1933 figures, in spite of a huge increase in the total national income, which, under capitalism, would normally be accompanied by a percentage increase in profits. ...f the German capitalists' 5%, the greater part is appropriated by the state as taxes and "contributions." ...

...how seldom we find a manager among the voluntary or forced exiles from Nazi Germany! There are artists and writers among the exiles, ideologists and politicians, unassailable foes of the new regime, storekeepers and professionals and teachers, and not a few capitalists, both Jews and Christians. But almost never a manager....Germany is to-day a managerial state in an early stage. Structurally, it is less advanced along managerial lines than Russia; ...though structurally less advanced...Its industrial and technological foundation is far stronger; the rising managerial class is much larger, better trained, more able...

...The first part of the second world war, up to the fall of France in June, 1940, was in reality the continuation of the strategic extension begun in 1935. This phase, the consolidation of the European base, was completed with France's surrender. It is completed irreversibly and can no longer be undone whatever the outcome of the succeeding phases of the war, which are really other wars. This consolidation fundamental to the world politics of managerial society, is not going to be dissolved, not even if the present German regime is utterly defeated. The day of a Europe carved into a score of sovereign states is over; if the states remain, they will be little more than administrative units in a larger collectivity. <ref>James Burnham, ''The Managerial Revolution'', Indiana University Press, Bloomingham 1966, pgs. 222-226, 232.</ref>}}

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==See Also==
*[[Anti-Semitism]]
*[[Adolf Hitler]]
*[[National Socialism]]

==External links==
*[http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Alternatives12.html Marxism, Fascism, Nazism] - Brad DeLong, Associate Professor of Economics, University of California at Berkeley
*Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Bible: A Scriptural Analysis of Anti-Semitism, National Socialism, and the Churches in Nazi Germany, by Joe Keysor
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:German History]]
[[Category:Holocaust]]
[[Category:Political Parties]]
[[Category:Fascist States]]
[[Category:Nazis]]
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]
[[Category:Racist Organizations]]
[[Category:Oppression]]

Jon Stewart

2011-07-15T03:06:44Z

WilliamB1:

[[Image:Jon Stewart.jpg|right]]
'''Jon Stewart''' (born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz on November 28, 1962) is an [[American]] [[liberal]], nine-time [[Emmy]]-winning [[American]] [[comedian]], [[satire|satirist]], [[actor]], [[author]], and producer. He describes himself as more of a [[socialist]] or an [[independent]] than a Democrat <ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/15/lkl.00.html</ref>. [[Roger Ailes]] mentioned that Stewart told him he is an atheist. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/11/18/roger-ailes-says-jon-stewart-told-him-hes-atheist-and-socialist#ixzz15j5QaQnF Roger Ailes Says Jon Stewart Told Him He's an Atheist and a Socialist, Newsbusters.org, November 18, 2010]</ref> He is best known as the host of [[Comedy Central]]'s ''[[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]'' and for his political satire. Jon Stewart is Jewish by heritage.

Stewart has also appeared in several films including "[[Big Daddy]]," "[[The Faculty]]", "[[Half Baked]]" and "[[Death To Smoochy]]." He was the host of the 2006 and 2008 [[Academy Award]]s.

Jon Stewart has co-written, along with other writers of The Daily Show, ''America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction'' which satirizes the American political system.

==Family==
Jon Stewart lives with his wife Tracey Stewart (née McShane) in New York City. They have two children.

==See Also==
* [[Rally To Restore Sanity]]
==Notes and References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Stewart, Jon}}
[[category:broadcasters]]
[[Category:Comedians]]
{{liberalism}}

Jon Stewart

2011-07-15T03:05:47Z

WilliamB1: reverting vandalism

Jon Stewart

2011-07-15T03:04:36Z

WilliamB1: Undo revision 889245 by RightyTighty (talk) vandalism

[[Image:Jon Stewart.jpg|right]]
'''Jon Stewart''' (born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz on November 28, 1962) is an [[American]] [[racist]] <ref>http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/06/24/liberal-comedy-jon-stewart-gets-special-treatment-when-mocking-herman-cain/</ref>, [[liberal]], nine-time [[Emmy]]-winning [[American]] [[comedian]], [[satire|satirist]], [[actor]], [[author]], and producer. He describes himself as more of a [[socialist]] or an [[independent]] than a Democrat <ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/15/lkl.00.html</ref>. [[Roger Ailes]] mentioned that Stewart told him he is an atheist. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/11/18/roger-ailes-says-jon-stewart-told-him-hes-atheist-and-socialist#ixzz15j5QaQnF Roger Ailes Says Jon Stewart Told Him He's an Atheist and a Socialist, Newsbusters.org, November 18, 2010]</ref> He is best known as the host of [[Comedy Central]]'s ''[[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]'' and for his political satire. Jon Stewart is Jewish by heritage.

Stewart has also appeared in several films including "[[Big Daddy]]," "[[The Faculty]]", "[[Half Baked]]" and "[[Death To Smoochy]]." He was the host of the 2006 and 2008 [[Academy Award]]s.

Jon Stewart has co-written, along with other writers of The Daily Show, ''America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction'' which satirizes the American political system.

==Family==
Jon Stewart lives with his wife Tracey Stewart (née McShane) in New York City. They have two children.

==Racism==

Stewart mocks some people with whom he disagrees with ethnic or foreign sounding accents, including black and Chinese accents. He admitted this to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. He has defended his racial attacks against [[Herman Cain]], who is an [[African American]], by saying it was just comedy. His racial biases are not just directed at conservatives. When [[President]] [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appeared on his show before the 2010 midterm elections, Stewart had the audacity to call the President "dude", which arguably was insulting less so towards Obama and more so towards the Office of the President. The fact that Obama did not call him out on this and the mere fact that Obama went onto the show displays how Obama has debased the respect of the office during his tenure. In contrast, Herman Cain did call Stewart out on his racism.

==See Also==
* [[Rally To Restore Sanity]]
==Notes and References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Stewart, Jon}}
[[category:broadcasters]]
[[Category:Comedians]]
{{liberalism}}

National Health Service

2011-07-08T01:57:38Z

WilliamB1: /* NICE */ recent name change

The '''National Health Service (NHS)''' is the [[United Kingdom]]'s nationalised [[health]] care system. It was established in 1948 as part of [[Clement Attlee]]'s post-[[World War II]] [[Labour Party|Labour]] government's socialist program, and has been supported by politicians of every party since then.

The NHS is nominally funded out of "National Insurance contributions", a form of personal [[taxation]] comparable to the US [[Social Security]] system. The NHS revenue stream is, in theory, entirely separate in operation from income tax.<ref>http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1394285&</ref> In practice, the NHS is funded from general taxation, and is accepted by the British electorate as being funded in this way. All prescription medicines (however not over-the-counter ones) are available for a low standard fee in [[England]]. Prescriptions are entirely free of charge in [[Wales]]<ref>http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Medicinespharmacyandindustry/Prescriptions/NHScosts/DH_508</ref>. NHS treatment is available to all residents of the UK. Most services, including complex and expensive surgical procedures and drugs, are free at the point of use, and those that are not (such as the provision of glasses and dental care) are free to people on low incomes. This ensures that everyone is able to be treated, no matter what their individual wealth or means may be.<ref>http://www.nhs.uk/England/AboutTheNhs/Default.cmsx</ref> "Private" (i.e. non-NHS) doctors and hospitals do exist in Britain, but fewer than 10% of Britons choose to buy private health insurance in preference to using the NHS. (The big exception to this is in the area of dental care: NHS dentists are relatively difficult to find in many areas, and many people are forced to "go private", even if uninsured.)

The NHS is Britain's largest employer, 1.3 million workers. This cradle-to-grave entitlement costs Britain $158 billion (USD) per year. Britain’s Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is looking to reform the state-run health-care system, which he called "second-rate" due to the program’s massive cost and lackluster performance. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/17/prime-minister-cameron-plans-to-reform-britains-government-run-health-care-system/ Prime Minister Cameron plans to reform Britain’s government-run health-care system, The Daily Caller, Jaunuary 17, 2011]</ref>

==Rationing==
Official figures published in 2009 revealed that more than 230,000 patients are being forced to wait more than 18 weeks for hospital treatment. <ref>[http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/120458/Burnham-forgets-230-000-on-list BURNHAM FORGETS 230,000 ON LIST, Daily Express UK, August 14, 2009]</ref> As a result of its comprehensive coverage, the resources of the NHS have been consistently tightly stretched for many years, leading to lengthy waiting lists for everything from dental work to surgery. This was the case in the 1980s and 1990s in particular. Since 1997, the NHS has benefited from substantially increased spending under the Labour Party, but there is a perception among many in Britain that the extra money has not been well spent or delivered appropriate improvements. Read more about ''"Delay, Denial and Dilution, The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer."'' <ref>[http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/rationreport.pdf Rationing PDF Report]</ref> There are many more examples of disasters caused by government intervention in the British health care system.

==Poor quality care==
One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released Aug. 27, 2009. In the last six years, says the Patients Association, hundreds of thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with 'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel' treatment.
<ref> Rebecca Smith, "'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed," [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel-and-neglectful-care-of-one-million-NHS-patients-exposed.html ''Telegraph'' (London) 27 Aug 2009]</ref>
Many critics, including Daniel Hannan, have expressed serious concern over the failure of the NHS in providing Britain with an acceptable health care. Criticism included the immense wasteful costs of the NHS, shortage of doctors and other vital employees, lack of available care, and poor quality of facilities and care.

==NICE==
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) proudly boasts "Developing a series of national clinical guidelines to secure consistent, high quality, evidence based care for patients." Yet, NICE is responsible for denying life saving medication, effectively becoming the government's "death panels". <ref>[http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/campaigns/nhsinjustice/8251183.Anger_as_Nice_denies_cancer_patient_life_extending_drug/ END NHS INJUSTICE, The Northern Echo, July 2, 2010]</ref>

==All party support==
The NHS is supported by politicians of all parties in the UK, but is widely regarded as the child of the Labour Party, and inspires particular affection in the supporters of this party. All post [[World War II]] governments have consistently supported the National Health Service. British voters take pride in free services. [[Margaret Thatcher]] worked to reform the National Health Service and make it more efficient <Ref>http://www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp#ess87-90</Ref> but it has continued to grow more and more bureaucratic and inefficient.

==References==

<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.nhs.uk/ NHS Official Homepage]
*[http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#britain The Problems with Socialized Health Care (Britain)]

[[Category:British Politics]]
[[Category:Health]]

National Health Service

2011-07-08T01:56:56Z

WilliamB1: Found no such statement in that article

The '''National Health Service (NHS)''' is the [[United Kingdom]]'s nationalised [[health]] care system. It was established in 1948 as part of [[Clement Attlee]]'s post-[[World War II]] [[Labour Party|Labour]] government's socialist program, and has been supported by politicians of every party since then.

The NHS is nominally funded out of "National Insurance contributions", a form of personal [[taxation]] comparable to the US [[Social Security]] system. The NHS revenue stream is, in theory, entirely separate in operation from income tax.<ref>http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1394285&</ref> In practice, the NHS is funded from general taxation, and is accepted by the British electorate as being funded in this way. All prescription medicines (however not over-the-counter ones) are available for a low standard fee in [[England]]. Prescriptions are entirely free of charge in [[Wales]]<ref>http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Medicinespharmacyandindustry/Prescriptions/NHScosts/DH_508</ref>. NHS treatment is available to all residents of the UK. Most services, including complex and expensive surgical procedures and drugs, are free at the point of use, and those that are not (such as the provision of glasses and dental care) are free to people on low incomes. This ensures that everyone is able to be treated, no matter what their individual wealth or means may be.<ref>http://www.nhs.uk/England/AboutTheNhs/Default.cmsx</ref> "Private" (i.e. non-NHS) doctors and hospitals do exist in Britain, but fewer than 10% of Britons choose to buy private health insurance in preference to using the NHS. (The big exception to this is in the area of dental care: NHS dentists are relatively difficult to find in many areas, and many people are forced to "go private", even if uninsured.)

The NHS is Britain's largest employer, 1.3 million workers. This cradle-to-grave entitlement costs Britain $158 billion (USD) per year. Britain’s Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is looking to reform the state-run health-care system, which he called "second-rate" due to the program’s massive cost and lackluster performance. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/17/prime-minister-cameron-plans-to-reform-britains-government-run-health-care-system/ Prime Minister Cameron plans to reform Britain’s government-run health-care system, The Daily Caller, Jaunuary 17, 2011]</ref>

==Rationing==
Official figures published in 2009 revealed that more than 230,000 patients are being forced to wait more than 18 weeks for hospital treatment. <ref>[http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/120458/Burnham-forgets-230-000-on-list BURNHAM FORGETS 230,000 ON LIST, Daily Express UK, August 14, 2009]</ref> As a result of its comprehensive coverage, the resources of the NHS have been consistently tightly stretched for many years, leading to lengthy waiting lists for everything from dental work to surgery. This was the case in the 1980s and 1990s in particular. Since 1997, the NHS has benefited from substantially increased spending under the Labour Party, but there is a perception among many in Britain that the extra money has not been well spent or delivered appropriate improvements. Read more about ''"Delay, Denial and Dilution, The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer."'' <ref>[http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/rationreport.pdf Rationing PDF Report]</ref> There are many more examples of disasters caused by government intervention in the British health care system.

==Poor quality care==
One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released Aug. 27, 2009. In the last six years, says the Patients Association, hundreds of thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with 'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel' treatment.
<ref> Rebecca Smith, "'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed," [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel-and-neglectful-care-of-one-million-NHS-patients-exposed.html ''Telegraph'' (London) 27 Aug 2009]</ref>
Many critics, including Daniel Hannan, have expressed serious concern over the failure of the NHS in providing Britain with an acceptable health care. Criticism included the immense wasteful costs of the NHS, shortage of doctors and other vital employees, lack of available care, and poor quality of facilities and care.

==NICE==
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) proudly boasts "Developing a series of national clinical guidelines to secure consistent, high quality, evidence based care for patients." Yet, NICE is responsible for denying life saving medication, effectively becoming the government's "death panels". <ref>[http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/campaigns/nhsinjustice/8251183.Anger_as_Nice_denies_cancer_patient_life_extending_drug/ END NHS INJUSTICE, The Northern Echo, July 2, 2010]</ref>

==All party support==
The NHS is supported by politicians of all parties in the UK, but is widely regarded as the child of the Labour Party, and inspires particular affection in the supporters of this party. All post [[World War II]] governments have consistently supported the National Health Service. British voters take pride in free services. [[Margaret Thatcher]] worked to reform the National Health Service and make it more efficient <Ref>http://www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp#ess87-90</Ref> but it has continued to grow more and more bureaucratic and inefficient.

==References==

<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.nhs.uk/ NHS Official Homepage]
*[http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#britain The Problems with Socialized Health Care (Britain)]

[[Category:British Politics]]
[[Category:Health]]

The News Of The World

2011-07-06T23:29:08Z

WilliamB1:

'''The News Of The World''' is a British Sunday tabloid [[newspaper]] published by the [[News Corporation]]. Its stock-in-trade is celebrity gossip, salacious tittle-tattle, sensationalised crime stories, and sport.

The paper has recently become embroiled in a number of scandals relating to paying police officers for information and hacking into the phones of celebrities and politicians. The ongoing scandal deepened in July 2011 when it was alleged that a private investigator working for the paper had hacked into the voice-mail of the families of dead UK soldiers as well as the families of victims of high profile crimes. The most disturbing allegation relates to the case of a murdered British girl, and that the investigator hacked into the girl's phone while she was missing, not only listening to her messages, but also deleting them. This gave the family false hope that she was still alive, and potentially obstructed the ongoing police investigation. <ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012035/News-World-phone-hacking-Even-war-widows-hackers-hit-list.html</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:United Kingdom Newspapers]]

Pedophilia

2011-06-09T22:09:47Z

WilliamB1: reverting vandalism

A '''pedophile''' or '''paedophile''' (non-US spelling) is a person who is sexually attracted to young [[children]]. A pedophile who acts out his or her wishes in the form of viewing child [[pornography]] or molesting youngsters is committing a [[crime]] and breaking virtually all moral codes. It is closely linked to [[immorality]] and [[sociopathy]].

Pedophilia used to be considered a [[mental illness]], but the APA changed its stance in 1994.<ref>[http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/articles/regenera/apa.htm Pedophilia No Longer a Disorder, Psychiatric Association Decides]</ref><ref>the American Psychiatric Association has stated is that an adult may engage in sex with a nine-year-old child, and if the adult is not bothered by what he is doing, then he has no reason to seek professional help. [http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/articles/regenera/dsm.htm] </ref>

Pedophilia is encouraged and praised in many parts of the [[Islamic]] world.<ref>[http://thelastcrusade.org/2010/03/09/hamas-pedophilia-update/ Hamas Pedophilia Update] (caution: the images may be shocking)</ref>

== External links ==

*[http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/text.html#1 Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland.]

==Notes==
<references />

[[Category:Sin]]
[[Category:Crime]]

Social media

2011-06-05T16:49:00Z

WilliamB1: about as long as it took me to see that the figure is 20% not 25%. The person making the claim has the responsibility to provide the reference. Don't go making claims and relying on others to do so

'''Social media''' is a euphemistic term for the [[gossip]]y and busybody websites that have developed to make money off of the typically underachieving users who spend time there. Characteristics of social media include:

*lack of educational content
*lower academic and job-related achievement by those who spend time there
*dominance by misleading [[liberal]] belief systems
*interference with the development of good, lasting relationships
*displacement of healthy social gatherings
*contributing to 20% of all divorces<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/6857918/Facebook-fuelling-divorce-research-claims.html</ref>

These busybody websites provide their users with a false sense of achievement as they add 'friends' or 'followers' to their often pseudonymous accounts. Users often display compulsive behavior, endlessly producing vacuous and repetitive content for their facebook pages or twitter feeds, where the near-total absence of [[conservative]] voices allows the most absurd nonsense to be applauded by 'followers'. The term itself demonstrates the unhealthy attitudes found on - and encouraged by - these sites, as users strive to build armies of unquestioning supporters and flee from honest, open-minded, intellectual debate.

(please add)

==References==

<references />

Social media

2011-06-05T16:08:24Z

WilliamB1: adding, as requested

Dinosaur

2011-06-03T16:15:14Z

WilliamB1: /* Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata */

{{Taxonomy
|name=Dinosaur
|image=Fdt566e4.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=Diapsida
|infraclass=Archosauromorpha
|superorder=Dinosauria
|order=Ornithischia; Saurischia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|family=
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Dinosaurs''' are usually believed to be extinct animals ranging in size from a few ounces to some of the largest land animals ever to exist.
The word ''dinosaur'' was coined in 1841 by [[Richard Owen]]<ref>Grigg, Russell, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1956/ Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Creation''
14(3):10–14, June 1992</ref>, from the Greek words for "terrible lizard", and reflected the creatures' large size and fearsome appearance to the early paleontologists.

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==
[[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, Edward Drinker Cope (1847-1897) and Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

===History of dinosuars===
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]
[[Creation science]] asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of [[creation]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|6,000 years ago]], along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans, thus [[Counterexamples to Evolution|debunking the Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

Creation science shows that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref>

[[Archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence supports the [[faith and science|logical]] conclusion that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, there are numerous references throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are clearly references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref> although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. However, the Biblical descriptions do not fit those creatures, note that hippopotamuses and elephants do not have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

Creation science rejects the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creation science shows that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

====Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creation science cites a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]
* There have been a number of sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-mbembe''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the [[University of Chicago]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />
** Dinosaur-like creatures have been seen by several people in two different parts of [[Papua New Guinea]] since 1990.<ref>Anon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/381 A living dinosaur?], ''Creation'' 23(1):56, December 2000. Irwin, Brian, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5847 Theropod and sauropod dinosaurs sighted in PNG?] 1st July, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century BC piece of art, contains a portion which depicts a group of Ethiopians hunting what some claim appears to be a dinosaur; there is much debate on this, however, and most modern art historians consider the mysterious animal to be a lion or a crocodile (the latter theory is supported by the presence of the Greek word for "crocodile" written near the image of the mysterious animal). <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], depicting the hunting of an animal which is often said to resemble a dinosaur (but which appears to be labelled "crocodile" in Greek).]]
** Engravings in the floor of Carlisle Cathedral appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" />

* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, showing that dragons were real creatures and were actua very likely dinosaurs.
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] New Years' Day celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the Wollemi Pine <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.
*Some believe the [[Loch Ness Monster]] to be a [[Plesiosaur]].

* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====
Creation science shows that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}

Creation science also cites the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Mayr]]<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1208mayr.asp 99 and still fighting God], 8th December, 2003 (Answers in Genesis).</ref> who stated the following:
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref>}}

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creation scientists:
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}

Creation science also shows that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|251px|right|There is excellent evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted. During a visit to the [[Creation Museum]], the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[PZ Myers]] had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM VIDEO] See also: [[Atheism and obesity]] and [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuvenim/4426093513/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
The view of [[atheism|atheists]], evolutionists and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be a meteorite) about 65 million years ago.
This precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to evolutionists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> A layer of rock containing high concentrations of [[Iridium]], a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is said to be due to the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref>The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the [[Yucatán]] Peninsula of the supposed age of this layer.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref>
Creationists assert that the assumptions underpinning the methods used by modern geologists are incorrect, and even though the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs—although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks found higher in the rock layers than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks lower down.{{fact}}

====An Explosion of new species ====

Evolutionists speculate that a mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], it is theorized that vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref>

==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==
Some evolutionary scientists assert that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html Claim CH710] (The TalkOrigins Archive)</ref>
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" />

Evolutionists speculate that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones indicates them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Creation science shows that those methods of dating rocks provide false results,{{citation needed}} and therefore reject this argument.

Creation science points out that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus shows that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref>

Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists show there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" />

==Description==

===''[[Saurischia]]''===
Herbivorous species were almost all quadrupedal. They carried peg-like teeth which cut, rather than chewed, plant material; grinding of food was aided by gastroliths. Carnivorous species were exclusively bipedal.
*Sauropoda
::Species of this infraorder are characterized by long necks and tails, barrel-shaped bodies, and column-like legs. In three families (notably Diplodocidae, Brachiosauridae, and Titanosauroidea) there are species which are of extreme size, in excess of 125 feet in length and 100 tons, making them the largest animals to have walked the earth.
:::''[[Apatosaurus]]''
:::''[[Brachiosaurus]]''
:::''[[Ultrasaurus]]''
:::''[[Seismosaurus]]''
:::''[[Argentinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Diplodocus]]''

*Theropoda
::Exclusively bipedal; forearms meant for grasping or holding. Fossil evidence for several species indicate pack hunting.
:::''[[Coelophysis]]''
:::''[[Ornithomimus]]''
:::''[[Allosaurus]]''
:::''[[Tyrannosaurus]]''
:::''[[Deinonychus]]''
:::''[[Velociraptor]]''
:::''[[Giganotosaurus]]''

===''[[Ornithischia]]''===
Species of this group were all herbivorous; most were quadrupedal. Front teeth were lacking, while a predentary bone was present in the front of the lower jaw. Several species (mainly within ''Ceratopsia'') had a distinctive parrot-like beak.
*Ceratopsia
::Species of this infraorder carried one or more horns on their heads, as well as a shield-like frill to protect the neck.
:::''[[Triceratops]]''
:::''[[Pachyrhinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Torosaurus]]''
:::''[[Protoceratops]]''
:::''[[Styracosaurus]]''
*Stegosauria
::Large dinosaurs with a row of bony plates on top of their backs, and several spikes used as a defensive weapon at the end of their tails.
:::''[[Stegosaurus]]''
:::''[[Huayangosaurus]]''
:::''[[Kentrosaurus]]''
*Ankylosauria
::Heavily-armored dinosaurs, some with a row of spikes along each side, and possessing a bony tail club.
:::''[[Ankylosaurus]]''
:::''[[Euoplocephalus]]''
:::''[[Edmontonia]]''
*Ornithopods
::Large, herd-dwelling dinosaurs that could run bipedaly. Several species had a "boss" of bone on their heads (Pachycephalosaurs) which may have been used for head-butting similar to bighorn sheep; others a crest of bone (hadrosaurs) which may have been sound resonators.
:::''[[Camptosaurus]]''
:::''[[Iguanodon]]''
:::''[[Pachycephalosaurus]]''
:::''[[Parasaurolophus]]''
:::''[[Edmontosaurus]]''
:::''[[Bactrosaurus]]''
:::''[[Maiasaura]]''

== In Popular Culture ==
*The [[Flintstones]] depicts humans and dinosaurs coexisting. While the cartoon is comedic in nature, it is accurate in that early man would have used dinosaurs as beasts of burden.

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

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Dinosaur

2011-06-03T16:10:59Z

WilliamB1: /* Dinosaurs and Birds */ they don't, the clade dinosauria is a sub-set of the class reptilia not aves

{{Taxonomy
|name=Dinosaur
|image=Fdt566e4.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=Diapsida
|infraclass=Archosauromorpha
|superorder=Dinosauria
|order=Ornithischia; Saurischia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|family=
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Dinosaurs''' are usually believed to be extinct animals ranging in size from a few ounces to some of the largest land animals ever to exist.
The word ''dinosaur'' was coined in 1841 by [[Richard Owen]]<ref>Grigg, Russell, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1956/ Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Creation''
14(3):10–14, June 1992</ref>, from the Greek words for "terrible lizard", and reflected the creatures' large size and fearsome appearance to the early paleontologists.

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==
[[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, Edward Drinker Cope (1847-1897) and Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

===History of dinosuars===
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]
[[Creation science]] asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of [[creation]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|6,000 years ago]], along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans, thus [[Counterexamples to Evolution|debunking the Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

Creation science shows that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref>

[[Archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence supports the [[faith and science|logical]] conclusion that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, there are numerous references throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are clearly references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref> although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. However, the Biblical descriptions do not fit those creatures, note that hippopotamuses and elephants do not have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

Creation science rejects the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creation science shows that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

====Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creation science cites a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]
* There have been a number of sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-mbembe''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the [[University of Chicago]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />
** Dinosaur-like creatures have been seen by several people in two different parts of [[Papua New Guinea]] since 1990.<ref>Anon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/381 A living dinosaur?], ''Creation'' 23(1):56, December 2000. Irwin, Brian, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5847 Theropod and sauropod dinosaurs sighted in PNG?] 1st July, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century BC piece of art, contains a portion which depicts a group of Ethiopians hunting what some claim appears to be a dinosaur; there is much debate on this, however, and most modern art historians consider the mysterious animal to be a lion or a crocodile (the latter theory is supported by the presence of the Greek word for "crocodile" written near the image of the mysterious animal). <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], depicting the hunting of an animal which is often said to resemble a dinosaur (but which appears to be labelled "crocodile" in Greek).]]
** Engravings in the floor of Carlisle Cathedral appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" />

* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, showing that dragons were real creatures and were actua very likely dinosaurs.
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] New Years' Day celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the Wollemi Pine <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.
*Some believe the [[Loch Ness Monster]] to be a [[Plesiosaur]].

* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====
Creation science shows that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}

Creation science also cites the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Mayr]]<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1208mayr.asp 99 and still fighting God], 8th December, 2003 (Answers in Genesis).</ref> who stated the following:
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref>}}

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creation scientists:
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}

Creation science also shows that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|251px|right|There is excellent evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted. During a visit to the [[Creation Museum]], the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[PZ Myers]] had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM VIDEO] See also: [[Atheism and obesity]] and [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuvenim/4426093513/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
The view of [[atheism|atheists]], evolutionists and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be a meteorite) about 65 million years ago.
This precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to evolutionists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> A layer of rock containing high concentrations of [[Iridium]], a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is said to be due to the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref>The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the [[Yucatán]] Peninsula of the supposed age of this layer.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref>
Creationists assert that the assumptions underpinning the methods used by modern geologists are incorrect, and even though the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs—although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks found higher in the rock layers than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks lower down.{{fact}}

====An Explosion of new species ====

Evolutionists speculate that a mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], it is theorized that vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref>

==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==
Some evolutionary scientists assert that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html Claim CH710] (The TalkOrigins Archive)</ref>
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" />

Evolutionists speculate that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones indicates them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Creation science shows that those methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.

Creation science points out that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus shows that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref>

Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists show there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" />

==Description==

===''[[Saurischia]]''===
Herbivorous species were almost all quadrupedal. They carried peg-like teeth which cut, rather than chewed, plant material; grinding of food was aided by gastroliths. Carnivorous species were exclusively bipedal.
*Sauropoda
::Species of this infraorder are characterized by long necks and tails, barrel-shaped bodies, and column-like legs. In three families (notably Diplodocidae, Brachiosauridae, and Titanosauroidea) there are species which are of extreme size, in excess of 125 feet in length and 100 tons, making them the largest animals to have walked the earth.
:::''[[Apatosaurus]]''
:::''[[Brachiosaurus]]''
:::''[[Ultrasaurus]]''
:::''[[Seismosaurus]]''
:::''[[Argentinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Diplodocus]]''

*Theropoda
::Exclusively bipedal; forearms meant for grasping or holding. Fossil evidence for several species indicate pack hunting.
:::''[[Coelophysis]]''
:::''[[Ornithomimus]]''
:::''[[Allosaurus]]''
:::''[[Tyrannosaurus]]''
:::''[[Deinonychus]]''
:::''[[Velociraptor]]''
:::''[[Giganotosaurus]]''

===''[[Ornithischia]]''===
Species of this group were all herbivorous; most were quadrupedal. Front teeth were lacking, while a predentary bone was present in the front of the lower jaw. Several species (mainly within ''Ceratopsia'') had a distinctive parrot-like beak.
*Ceratopsia
::Species of this infraorder carried one or more horns on their heads, as well as a shield-like frill to protect the neck.
:::''[[Triceratops]]''
:::''[[Pachyrhinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Torosaurus]]''
:::''[[Protoceratops]]''
:::''[[Styracosaurus]]''
*Stegosauria
::Large dinosaurs with a row of bony plates on top of their backs, and several spikes used as a defensive weapon at the end of their tails.
:::''[[Stegosaurus]]''
:::''[[Huayangosaurus]]''
:::''[[Kentrosaurus]]''
*Ankylosauria
::Heavily-armored dinosaurs, some with a row of spikes along each side, and possessing a bony tail club.
:::''[[Ankylosaurus]]''
:::''[[Euoplocephalus]]''
:::''[[Edmontonia]]''
*Ornithopods
::Large, herd-dwelling dinosaurs that could run bipedaly. Several species had a "boss" of bone on their heads (Pachycephalosaurs) which may have been used for head-butting similar to bighorn sheep; others a crest of bone (hadrosaurs) which may have been sound resonators.
:::''[[Camptosaurus]]''
:::''[[Iguanodon]]''
:::''[[Pachycephalosaurus]]''
:::''[[Parasaurolophus]]''
:::''[[Edmontosaurus]]''
:::''[[Bactrosaurus]]''
:::''[[Maiasaura]]''

== In Popular Culture ==
*The [[Flintstones]] depicts humans and dinosaurs coexisting. While the cartoon is comedic in nature, it is accurate in that early man would have used dinosaurs as beasts of burden.

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

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Dinosaur

2011-06-03T16:03:26Z

WilliamB1: /* History of dinosuars */ can falsify, not proove

{{Taxonomy
|name=Dinosaur
|image=Fdt566e4.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=Diapsida
|infraclass=Archosauromorpha
|superorder=Dinosauria
|order=Ornithischia; Saurischia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|family=
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Dinosaurs''' are usually believed to be extinct animals ranging in size from a few ounces to some of the largest land animals ever to exist.
The word ''dinosaur'' was coined in 1841 by [[Richard Owen]]<ref>Grigg, Russell, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1956/ Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Creation''
14(3):10–14, June 1992</ref>, from the Greek words for "terrible lizard", and reflected the creatures' large size and fearsome appearance to the early paleontologists.

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==
[[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, Edward Drinker Cope (1847-1897) and Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

===History of dinosuars===
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]
[[Creation science]] asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of [[creation]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|6,000 years ago]], along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans, thus [[Counterexamples to Evolution|debunking the Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

Creation science shows that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref>

[[Archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence supports the [[faith and science|logical]] conclusion that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, there are numerous references throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are clearly references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref> although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. However, the Biblical descriptions do not fit those creatures, note that hippopotamuses and elephants do not have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

Creation science rejects the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creation science shows that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

====Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creation science cites a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]
* There have been a number of sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-mbembe''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the [[University of Chicago]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />
** Dinosaur-like creatures have been seen by several people in two different parts of [[Papua New Guinea]] since 1990.<ref>Anon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/381 A living dinosaur?], ''Creation'' 23(1):56, December 2000. Irwin, Brian, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5847 Theropod and sauropod dinosaurs sighted in PNG?] 1st July, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century BC piece of art, contains a portion which depicts a group of Ethiopians hunting what some claim appears to be a dinosaur; there is much debate on this, however, and most modern art historians consider the mysterious animal to be a lion or a crocodile (the latter theory is supported by the presence of the Greek word for "crocodile" written near the image of the mysterious animal). <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], depicting the hunting of an animal which is often said to resemble a dinosaur (but which appears to be labelled "crocodile" in Greek).]]
** Engravings in the floor of Carlisle Cathedral appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" />

* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, showing that dragons were real creatures and were actua very likely dinosaurs.
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] New Years' Day celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the Wollemi Pine <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.
*Some believe the [[Loch Ness Monster]] to be a [[Plesiosaur]].

* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====
Creation science shows that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}

Creation science also cites the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Mayr]]<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1208mayr.asp 99 and still fighting God], 8th December, 2003 (Answers in Genesis).</ref> who stated the following:
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref>}}

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creation scientists:
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}

Creation science also shows that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|251px|right|There is excellent evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted. During a visit to the [[Creation Museum]], the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[PZ Myers]] had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM VIDEO] See also: [[Atheism and obesity]] and [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuvenim/4426093513/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
The view of [[atheism|atheists]], evolutionists and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be a meteorite) about 65 million years ago.
This precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to evolutionists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> A layer of rock containing high concentrations of [[Iridium]], a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is said to be due to the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref>The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the [[Yucatán]] Peninsula of the supposed age of this layer.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref>
Creationists assert that the assumptions underpinning the methods used by modern geologists are incorrect, and even though the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs—although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks found higher in the rock layers than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks lower down.{{fact}}

====An Explosion of new species ====

Evolutionists speculate that a mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], it is theorized that vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref> Evolutionist cladists place modern birds within the clade dinosauria, meaning that they consider all bird species today as, technically, dinosaurs.<ref>[http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria/14883/1999.01.01 Tree of Life Web Project.] 1999. Dinosauria. Version 01 January 1999 (temporary). Accessed 30 May 2007.</ref>

==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==
Some evolutionary scientists assert that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html Claim CH710] (The TalkOrigins Archive)</ref>
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" />

Evolutionists speculate that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones indicates them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Creation science shows that those methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.

Creation science points out that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus shows that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref>

Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists show there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" />

==Description==

===''[[Saurischia]]''===
Herbivorous species were almost all quadrupedal. They carried peg-like teeth which cut, rather than chewed, plant material; grinding of food was aided by gastroliths. Carnivorous species were exclusively bipedal.
*Sauropoda
::Species of this infraorder are characterized by long necks and tails, barrel-shaped bodies, and column-like legs. In three families (notably Diplodocidae, Brachiosauridae, and Titanosauroidea) there are species which are of extreme size, in excess of 125 feet in length and 100 tons, making them the largest animals to have walked the earth.
:::''[[Apatosaurus]]''
:::''[[Brachiosaurus]]''
:::''[[Ultrasaurus]]''
:::''[[Seismosaurus]]''
:::''[[Argentinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Diplodocus]]''

*Theropoda
::Exclusively bipedal; forearms meant for grasping or holding. Fossil evidence for several species indicate pack hunting.
:::''[[Coelophysis]]''
:::''[[Ornithomimus]]''
:::''[[Allosaurus]]''
:::''[[Tyrannosaurus]]''
:::''[[Deinonychus]]''
:::''[[Velociraptor]]''
:::''[[Giganotosaurus]]''

===''[[Ornithischia]]''===
Species of this group were all herbivorous; most were quadrupedal. Front teeth were lacking, while a predentary bone was present in the front of the lower jaw. Several species (mainly within ''Ceratopsia'') had a distinctive parrot-like beak.
*Ceratopsia
::Species of this infraorder carried one or more horns on their heads, as well as a shield-like frill to protect the neck.
:::''[[Triceratops]]''
:::''[[Pachyrhinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Torosaurus]]''
:::''[[Protoceratops]]''
:::''[[Styracosaurus]]''
*Stegosauria
::Large dinosaurs with a row of bony plates on top of their backs, and several spikes used as a defensive weapon at the end of their tails.
:::''[[Stegosaurus]]''
:::''[[Huayangosaurus]]''
:::''[[Kentrosaurus]]''
*Ankylosauria
::Heavily-armored dinosaurs, some with a row of spikes along each side, and possessing a bony tail club.
:::''[[Ankylosaurus]]''
:::''[[Euoplocephalus]]''
:::''[[Edmontonia]]''
*Ornithopods
::Large, herd-dwelling dinosaurs that could run bipedaly. Several species had a "boss" of bone on their heads (Pachycephalosaurs) which may have been used for head-butting similar to bighorn sheep; others a crest of bone (hadrosaurs) which may have been sound resonators.
:::''[[Camptosaurus]]''
:::''[[Iguanodon]]''
:::''[[Pachycephalosaurus]]''
:::''[[Parasaurolophus]]''
:::''[[Edmontosaurus]]''
:::''[[Bactrosaurus]]''
:::''[[Maiasaura]]''

== In Popular Culture ==
*The [[Flintstones]] depicts humans and dinosaurs coexisting. While the cartoon is comedic in nature, it is accurate in that early man would have used dinosaurs as beasts of burden.

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

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Plate tectonics

2011-06-03T15:58:10Z

WilliamB1: /* Explanations of continental drift */ a priori rejection

{{merge from|Continental drift}}

'''Plate tectonics''' is a geological model of the movement of [[continental plate]]s, known as [[Continental drift]], which explains how the [[Earth]] once had a [[Pangaea|single large land mass]] which broke into [[continent]]s that continued to separate, and that they still move slowly today.

== Ocean floor mapping ==

About two thirds of the Earth's surface lies beneath the oceans. Before the 19th century, the depths of the open ocean were largely a matter of speculation, and most people thought that the ocean floor was relatively flat and featureless. However, as early as the 16th century, a few intrepid navigators, by taking soundings with hand lines, found that the open ocean can differ considerably in depth, showing that the ocean floor was not as flat as generally believed. Oceanic exploration during the next centuries dramatically improved our knowledge of the ocean floor. We now know that most of the geologic processes occurring on land are linked, directly or indirectly, to the dynamics of the ocean floor.

"Modern" measurements of ocean depths greatly increased in the 19th century, when deep-sea line soundings (bathymetric surveys) were routinely made in the Atlantic and Caribbean. In 1855, a bathymetric chart published by U.S. Navy Lieutenant Matthew Maury revealed the first evidence of underwater mountains in the central Atlantic (which he called "Middle Ground"). This was later confirmed by survey ships laying the trans-Atlantic telegraph cable. Our picture of the ocean floor greatly sharpened after World War I (1914-18), when echo-sounding devices -- primitive sonar systems -- began to measure ocean depth by recording the time it took for a sound signal (commonly an electrically generated "ping") from the ship to bounce off the ocean floor and return. Time graphs of the returned signals revealed that the ocean floor was much more rugged than previously thought. Such echo-sounding measurements clearly demonstrated the continuity and roughness of the submarine mountain chain in the central Atlantic (later called the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) suggested by the earlier bathymetric measurements.

In 1947, seismologists on the U.S. research ship Atlantis found that the sediment layer on the floor of the Atlantic was much thinner than originally thought. Most scientists had previously believed that the oceans have existed for at least four billion years, so therefore the sediment layer should have been very thick. Why then was there so little accumulation of sedimentary rock and debris on the ocean floor? Their answer to this question, which came after further exploration, would prove to be vital to advancing the concept of plate tectonics.

In the 1950s, oceanic exploration greatly expanded. Data gathered by oceanographic surveys conducted by many nations led to the discovery that a great mountain range on the ocean floor virtually encircled the Earth. Called the global mid-ocean ridge, this immense submarine mountain chain -- more than 50,000 kilometers (km) long and, in places, more than 800 km across -- zig-zags between the continents, winding its way around the globe like the seam on a baseball. Rising an average of about 4,500 meters(m) above the sea floor, the mid-ocean ridge overshadows all the mountains in the United States except for [[Mount McKinley]] (Denali) in Alaska (6,194 m). Though hidden beneath the ocean surface, the global mid-ocean ridge system is the most prominent topographic feature on the surface of our planet.

== Magnetic Striping and Reversals ==

Beginning in the 1950s, scientists, using [[magnetism|magnetic]] instruments (magnetometers) adapted from airborne devices developed during [[World War II]] to detect [[submarine]]s, began recognizing odd magnetic variations across the ocean floor, showing reversals in the Earth's magnetic field over it's history. This finding, though unexpected, was not entirely surprising because it was known that basalt -- the iron-rich, volcanic rock making up the ocean floor-- contains a strongly magnetic mineral (magnetite) and can locally distort compass readings. This distortion was recognized by Icelandic mariners as early as the late 18th century. More important, because the presence of magnetite gives the basalt measurable magnetic properties, these newly discovered magnetic variations provided another means to study the deep ocean floor.

== Explanations of continental drift ==

The breaking up of one land mass into the separate continents was first proposed by the [[France|French]] [[creation scientist]] [[Antonio Snider]] in 1859,<ref name="Snider">Batten, Don, et. al., The Creation Answers Book, chapter 11: [http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter11.pdf What about continental drift?], p. 157, 2007</ref> who astutely observed an almost perfect match between the coastlines of western [[Africa]] and eastern [[South America]], which suggested they had once been joined. The idea was later taken up by [[Alfred Wegener]] in the 1930s."<ref name=wcd> [http://www.scientus.org/Wegener-Continental-Drift.html Wegener and Continental Drift Theory]</ref> [[Atheists]] mocked the concept for about 100 years (see [[scientific bias]]), until finally accepting its truth in the 1960s.<ref name="Snider" />

Although Snider and Wegener did not have an explanation of the cause of continental drift, the rigid discipline of [[creation science]] allied with [[Faith and science|faith and logic]] eventually enabled creation scientist to interpret [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] in order to explain how a relatively recent cataclysmic event caused the separation of the still-moving continents from one land mass. Genesis 1:9-10 describes how all of dry land was in one place.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html#1</ref> The continental drift occurring during the [[Great Flood]] when the earth was divided (Genesis 10:25).

Dr. [[John Baumgardner]], a geophysicist then with the Los Alamos National Laboratory, developed a sophisticated 3D computer model of plate tectonics, and believes that his model works best as a rapid process during the Flood.<ref>Batten, Don, et. al., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter11.pdf What about continental drift?] Chapter 11 of the Creation Answers Book, 2007.</ref>

The creation scientist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] predicted that magnetic reversals would be found with time frames of days or weeks, from having occurred during the Flood. In an example of a successful creation science prediction, scientists subsequently found magnetic reversals that had taken place over the space of 15 days.<ref>Snelling, Andrew A., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1233/ Fossil magnetism reveals rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field], ''Creation'' 13(3):46–50, June 1991.</ref>

Atheistic [[science]] rejects the Biblical truth and instead applies [[liberal logic]] to concoct a [[junk science]] explanation based on the present observed rate of continental drift, which came to the tenuous conclusion that the continents that we know today were part of a single land mass about 250 million years ago.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:geology]]

Tsunami

2011-06-03T15:52:07Z

WilliamB1:

[[File:Japan tsunami.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Tsunami waves approaching Kessennuma port, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, in the aftermath of the 8.9 magnitude earthquake of March 11, 2011 (Reuters/Yomiuri).

Reuters/Yomiuri 2011]]
A '''tsunami''' (also, but inaccurately, referred to as a Tidal Wave), which is Japanese for "harbor wave," is a massive ocean wave typically caused by an underwater [[earthquake]], a submarine landslide or a coastal landslide. It can cause widespread death and destruction, and even erase entire islands from the surface of the globe. The tsunami that struck South Asia on December 26, 2004, caused the deaths of about 300,000 people.

[[National Geographic]] and others have reported that animals protect themselves, such as scampering to high ground, in anticipation of the tsunami flooding their area.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-01-03-tsunami-blog_x.htm</ref>.

A '''tsunami''' is also used as a popular metaphor to describe a big change in voter or consumer preferences.

<center>
[[File:Tsunami Wave Height Pacific.jpg|400px|center]]

Tsunami Wave Height, Pacific Ocean.
</center>

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:meteorology]]
[[category:natural Disasters]]

Tsunami

2011-06-03T15:50:37Z

WilliamB1: tsunami's are not tidal, though the two concepts are often mistakenly combined

[[File:Japan tsunami.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Tsunami waves approaching Kessennuma port, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, in the aftermath of the 8.9 magnitude earthquake of March 11, 2011 (Reuters/Yomiuri).

Reuters/Yomiuri 2011]]
A '''tsunami''' (also, but inaccurately, referred to as a Tidal Wave), which is Japanese for "harbor wave," is a massive ocean wave typically caused by an underwater [[earthquake]] out in the ocean. It can cause widespread death and destruction, and even erase entire islands from the surface of the globe. The tsunami that struck South Asia on December 26, 2004, caused the deaths of about 300,000 people.

[[National Geographic]] and others have reported that animals protect themselves, such as scampering to high ground, in anticipation of the tsunami flooding their area.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-01-03-tsunami-blog_x.htm</ref>.

A '''tsunami''' is also used as a popular metaphor to describe a big change in voter or consumer preferences.

<center>
[[File:Tsunami Wave Height Pacific.jpg|400px|center]]

Tsunami Wave Height, Pacific Ocean.
</center>

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:meteorology]]
[[category:natural Disasters]]

Earthquake

2011-06-03T15:48:22Z

WilliamB1: the richter scale is no longer used by geologists; the media frequently and incorrectly refer to it when it is in fact the Moment Magnitude Scale that's used

[[File:Japan quake sendai.jpg|thumb|200px|Japan quake 2011.]]
An '''earthquake''' is when the [[Earth]] shakes, caused by [[plate tectonics|tectonic]] activity in an area after the release of stored [[energy]] from the [[rock]]. Earthquakes most commonly occur on tectonic plate boundaries, and also occur along [[fault|faults]] where previous movement has occurred. There are 500,000 detectable earthquakes in the world each year.

Earthquakes are a significant natural [[hazard]] to populations living in areas prone to them, and emergency responses to the hazard vary with economic development. The most powerful and destructive earthquakes occur at tectonic plate boundaries like the [[San Andreas Fault]].

The severity of earthquakes is measured using the Moment Magnitude Scale, which replaced the [[Richter scale]] with the largest quake ever recorded being 9.5 which struck Chile in 1960<ref>http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/10_largest_world.php</ref>.

[[File:Japan quake World latest USGS - PD.jpg|550px|left]]
{{Clear}}

==See also==
* [[Seismic]]
* [[Loma Prieta Earthquake]]

==External links==
*[http://www.drgeorgepc.com/EarthquakesChina.html Historical Earthquakes in China]
*[http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/ Latest Earthquakes in the World - Past 7 days.]
*[http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/region/N_America.php Latest Earthquakes in the North America Region.]

[[Category:Seismology]]
[[Category:Natural Disasters]]

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-06-03T15:16:42Z

WilliamB1: /* The flow of water in the Colorado River has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade */

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive 1|Archive 1]].'''''

----


I'd like to take out the phrase "asserted by atheists" from one of the Astronomy counterexamples, because it is not just atheists who believe in an [[Old Earth]] but also [[Old Earth Creationists]]. Any objections? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:37, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

== Freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young. ==

I'd like to have this point removed: The [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Countering_the_counter_examples|previous discussion]] has shown that it doesn't have any merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

As no one added to the previous discussion, I removed the point. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==

That's as bad as the example of the lakes: it reminds me of stating: ''he cannot be old, all his pimples are recent''. And the given references don't mention any ''extrapolation''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:03, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== Great Lakes ==

''The massive [[Great Lakes]] are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago''

That would be only a counterexample, if there were any geologist who thought them to be millions of years old. But it seems to be scientific consensus that these lakes were created during the last great ice age ca. 10,000 years ago. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:07, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== Salt Water Lakes ==

''The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]]''

No, it doesn't. It just suggests that [[endorheic]] lakes exist - lakes without an outflow to rivers or the ocean. If such a sea has an inflow, any dissolved material (like salts) will accumulate, while the water just evaporates.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:12, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to above 4 comments ==

The 4 comments above are not substantive. In each case, the evidence is that a basic attribute of Earth ''is'' young, and nothing above supports the denial of this fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:No. But they are all counterarguments to the concreteness of your examples. The comments above are all traditionally accepted and easily verifiable scientific theories that offer a more plausible and widely accepted version of what happened than the case you present. Take for example, your point regarding inland saltwater lakes. You make the claim that they can ONLY exist with the aid of a global flood. This is CATEGORICALLY untrue, and demonstrates a dangerous predisposition to jump to conclusions without scientific fact. As mentioned above. The existence of said lakes is attributed to a chemical tendency known as distillation. Water is volatile and salt is not, therefore water evaporates out of the lake until the concentration of salt and other solids is extremely high. You can duplicate this experiment at home by taking a large jug of tap water and allowing it to sit in a hot, bright, dry room for a few weeks. When you return, the tap water will have an extremely high salinity, no ocean water needed.

:Conversely, the claim about a global flood has numerous holes in it. For one, there is no uniform layer of sediment that exists evenly in global geological strata. Such a layer would be inevitable if the world really was entirely submerged for any appreciable period of time. Secondly, and more importantly, there isn't enough water to fill the oceans AND cover the land. A global flood would require that there had once been a lot of water that is no longer present on earth, and this simply can't happen.

:I'm sorry to say, Andy, but YOUR arguments are not substantive.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:02, 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== What's a counterexample? ==

Maybe we have to start with the question above. I think it is reasonable to expect a ''counterexample'' to have some basic properties:

# it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.
# it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a ''Young Earth'' and finally:
# the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.

What are the theories saying? Here are two working definitions...

'''Old Earth''': Since the 18th century, scientist are convinced that the surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time. So, if there is a somewhat widespread geological feature, we expect that we can observe it in all stages of development.

'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped as we find it now by the Great Flood.

So, how do the examples fit in?

: Frank, the style of your remarks reflect a lack of an open mind towards this issue. You state, "Since the 18th century, scientist[s] are convinced ... over long periods of time." This is an historical distortion, and unhelpful to an open-minded discussion even if were true.

: I welcome open-minded discussions, but closed-minded discussions are often a waste of time. So please show some signs of an open mind about this first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

::I'm all for an open-minded discussion, too, and I'm sorry if my previous comment didn't convey this. So, let's drop the historical aspect, and just say:
::*'''Old Earth''': The surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time, and the rate of this change is roughly constant.
::*'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped by the Great Flood a couple of thousands years ago.

::But I hope you can agree with the basic properties (points 1-3 above) a ''counterexample to an Old Earth'' should have?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:46, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Frank, are you trying to refute any of the counterexamples? (In which case please provide some actual evidence) Your closed-minded insistence on causing argument seems pointless. [[User:ArnoldR|ArnoldR]] 08:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them ===
''Fragile natural arches'' exist, as there are always formed new ones. Old natural arches collapse, but [http://www.archmillennium.net/Baby_Arch.htm others] may [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kcb60/level2/lith61.html replace] them. What if there were no natural arches? I don't think that anybody had thought of them then.

=== The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ===
No geologists thinks that these lakes are millions of years old: they were created during the last ice age. Lakes are constantly created (e.g., when rivers change there bed), and happen to perish over time ([[Messel pit]]). Some are older than others ([[Baikal sea]]). The absence of new lakes would be quite puzzling for geologists! And Earth isn't as young as the youngest lake, but much older than the oldest one... (by FrankC)

: The "ice age theory" was a patch to try to explain away the counterexample. The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::It quite a leap to get from ''Great Lakes were created during the last ice age'' to ''all lakes were created during the last ice age''! There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the [[Great Flood]], though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.
::BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::: Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample.

::: As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here:

::::1. it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility.

::::2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally:

:::::No, this is not required, but illustrates a basic flaw in Old-Earth-thinking. Do you think mathematicians accept the validity of a hypothesis as long as no competing hypothesis has been proven? Of course not.

::::3. the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::''implausible ice age theory''? What's implausible about that? It just doesn't fit your YEC preconceptions.
::::::# Yes, I include the requirement of plausibility. What's the point of implausible counterexamples?
::::::# Is there a third theory I haven't heard of? If the Earth isn't young, it is old.
::::::# ''This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates''. No, I'm afraid, that' just obvious common sense.
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:55, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Frank, if you're not going to address my substantive points, then please don't respond. I make a direct analogy to mathematical hypotheses and you ignored it. Do you really think a mathematical hypothesis must be true if there is no proof for the converse?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:16, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::::I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the substantive points, so I try to make myself clearer by using the language of logic. So, let's '''C''' be a counterexample to the Old Earth Theory ('''OET'''). If '''C''' is true, than '''OET''' should be false, that's the first point:
::::::::'''1: ''' '''C ⇒ ~OET'''. If '''C''' is a good counterexample, than this equation should be obvious for everyone.
::::::::I thought the Young Earth Theory ('''YET''') and the Old Earth Theory to be complementary, so ''' YET = ~OET'''. Therefore obviously
::::::::'''2: ''' '''C ⇒ YET'''
::::::::And from ''1'', one gets
::::::::'''3: ''' ''' OET ⇒ ~C'''
::::::::I hope that this straightforward formulation is less confusing than my verbose ''the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. '' I formulated it this way, as all this isn't as ''exact'' as one would wish for: what's an obvious relation for one, needs quite an elaborate explanation for another.

::::::::But now for ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ''. As I said before, OET don't claim that these lakes existed millions of years ago, but are quite recent. You then said : '' The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.'' So, what's your ''counterexample'' now? Do you claim that the OET implies that all lakes are of the same age or were created in the same way? It seems to me that you are saying: ''As there are lakes near the Equator, the Great Lakes are millions of years old - according to OET''. But that's just a [[strawman]], and shouldn't be included in the list.
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood ===
As said earlier, saltwater lakes are explained easily as being [[endorheic]]. If there were no saltwater seas, then the endorheic basins would have to be very unstable, preventing bodies of water to become older than a couple of hundred years. This would imply quite a geologic activity, which we don't observe. But how do these inland saltwater lakes fit within the theory of a ''Young Earth''? Do you imply that the Earth was inundated by a salty ocean for forty days and nights? How could anything survive - and multiply - on this salty ground when the water receded? To explain these lakes with a global flood poses quite a few problems.
So, this ''counterexample'' is especially unconvincing, as it fails all three basic properties...

=== An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age ===
Has anyone done this extrapolation? Without it, the point is moot.

At the moment, the article impresses with the quantity of examples. But the obvious weakness of some examples distracts from other examples which may have some merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lakes again ==

*It was repeatedly explained why the ''Great Lakes'' are no countexample to an Old Earth.
*Aschlafly concluded: ''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample."''
*Aschlafly, could you reformulate the ''counterexample'' in question? Thanks.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:49, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: There are large freshwater lakes near the Equator. Do you think an "Ice Age" formed them also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::To quote myself: ''There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the Great Flood, though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.'' [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:15, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You may quote yourself, but your answer was less than direct. You seem to admit that that the Ice Age did NOT form the large freshwater lakes near the Equator. But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also. That defies explanation consistent with an Old Earth theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Pfft, in the 70's [[Liberal|liberals]] were saying that the earth was cooling. Now, its supposedly warming. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their tune about the "Ice Age" in 40 years.

''But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also.''

I'm afraid that your confidence is misplaced - the examinations and tests of geologists lead to different results. Let's have a closer look - what lakes are we talking about? Near to the equator - say in the strip between 5° North and 5° South - the number of lakes of considerable size isn't big:
*[[South America]]: none
*[[Indonesia]]: '''Lake Toba''' on [[Sumatra]], '''Lake Tempe''' and '''Lake Poso''' on [[Sulawesi]]. Lake Toba is the largest volcanic lake in the world, resulting from an eruption 69,000 - 78,000 years ago. So, it's older (according to the test of geologists) than the last [[Ice Age]], but fairly young on a geological scale. Lake Tempe is a flood plain of an average depth of 5m, so it's quite volatile in geological standards. Lake Poso is a tectonic lake and regarded as ancient (1 - 2 million years).
*[[Africa]]: Here you find the [[African Great Lakes]], in the area of our interest especially, the [[Lake Victoria]], [[Lake Tanganyika]], [[Lake Turkana]], [[Lake Albert]], [[Lake Kivu]], and [[Lake Edward]]. These are located in the [[Great Rift Valley]], which is - according to geologists - a continental rift zone. Though you may call ''Lake Victoria'' young - as it's only 500,000 old and dried out a couple of times, the other lakes are estimated to be roughly 4 million years old.

All of these lakes are older than the American [[Great Lakes]]. So, I repeat my request: please, remove ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '' from the list of counterexamples:
* it is misleading, as ''atheistic geologists'' don't claim that these lakes ''have existed millions of years ago''
* your alternate approach (''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample'') doesn't work neither, as there are ancient (≈ 4 million years) freshwater lakes.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:47, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.

: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::''None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.''
::On the contrary, there is little doubt under geologists that all of the lakes above are not young (with the possible exception of Lake Tempe) . Every textbook on geology will tell you that the oldes of Great African Lakes were formed ≈ 4 mya ago, with Lake Victoria being the youngest of the lot<ref>John Reader, ''Africa'', National Geographic 9/2001</ref>. The [http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0601-09= Toba event] took place ≈ 70,000 years ago.
::''Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.''
::This doesn't make sense. Carbon dating is only used on relatively young (holecenic) freshwater sources. (More in a separate section)
::''I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory?''
::I thought that I've answered this question, too, but I'll elaborate:
::*no, arguing against one theory doesn't defend the other. But both theories can't be true simultaneously - though both could be false. OTOH, there aren't that many concurring theories out there. And entries like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=784643&oldid=784484 this] of your fellow sysop ''Conservative'' show that on this page, Old Earth Theory and Young Earth Theory are put against each other.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? Of course not. The Old Earth theory is disproved by the numerous counterexamples, and creationism is irrelevant to that disproof or a reasoned discussion of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==

What's implausible about it? The article [[Ice Age]] doesn't say anything about plausibility. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:51, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last [[Ice Age]] nor for the [[Great Flood]].

::The creation of the Great Lakes however can be studied by geologists who examined the history of this area. Their surveys paint an interesting picture of the formation of the Great Lakes ([http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/damery1/gl_form.html here] an introduction).

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, you repeatedly reason in an "either-or" manner, as though the only two possibilities are the [[Old Earth]] and your view of [[creationism]]. That's not logical or scientific. Both could be wrong. No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.

::: If the Ice Age theory provided a plausible explanation for the Great Lakes and other observed formations (such as the Mississippi bluffs), then a computer simulation would be easy to build. But it hasn't been done, which suggests that the Ice Age theory is implausible in explaining all that is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::*both could be false, both aren't simulated globally
:::*are you ''confident'' that such a simulation could be easily build? The formation of the Great Lakes has been simulatied - that's something I'm confident of.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:24, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::(Could you please answer to my substantive edits in the previous section? Thanks. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:25, 2 June 2010 (EDT))

:::: Computer simulations would be easy to make. scientists clearly have access to computers. If they're so confident of their "theories" why not make an accurate simulation and add that as proof? I think they know there irratioinal beliefs won't help up to scruteny. FrankC, just have an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:36, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Actually, this PDF contains the results of just such a survey: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V72-48F04CM-26&_user=10&_coverDate=08/20/1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1478705466&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4e83cc89688e873bc3fa1889ab02a7b4&searchtype=a

:::::Andy, and ReligiousRight, I would suggest you both take your own advice on open-mindedness and try to read it.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

:::::And, just as a side note: As a programmer, I can assure you that simulating systems that involve literally millions of variables is about as easy as as it sounds.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages ==

# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

The source doesn't corroborate the claim. The authors of the study seem to be well aware of the limits of [[carbon dating]], and don't try to apply it to pre-Holecene water. And of course, a reservoir can be older than the water it holds (you can't judge the age of the glass by the vintage of the wine!).

Conservapedia's article on [[carbon dating]] highlights the fact that it can't be used to determine ages older than 50,000 years.

nota bene: the source shouldn't be used for ''lakes'' at all: it mentions lakes only in a passing reference to the founder of the science of dating water, Franke and Deevey.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:08, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

<references/>

:"14C dating of the DIC in palaeowater is indispensable for paleohydrological and palaeoclimatologi-
cal reconstructions and for applied hydrogeological studies. Numerical mass-transport modeling
profits from the improvement of hydrogeological conceptions and the revision of boundary condi-
tions. In the case of non-steady-state recharge conditions, maximum and minimum recharge rates in
the past may be estimated from 14C dates of DIC via numerical modeling.

:14C dates measured from DIC enable the determination of regional geohydraulic parameters and
allow water balances to be checked. In most applications, complementary environmental isotope
analyses of hydrogen and oxygen together with general hydrochemical measurements are recom-
mended to facilitate a comprehensive and thorough interpretation of the 14C dates (Cark and Fritz
1997).

:A primary task towards a significant improvement in the applied 14C dating of groundwater remains
with the development of procedures that will enable 14C activities measured from DIC to be confi-
dently included in the calibration of finite-element and compartmental modeling exercises."

:This is a quote from the conclusion of the paper Andy cited to make his point about C-14 testing. In short, the conclusion says that it is necessary to further develop C-14 testing for dissolved carbons so as to improve our understanding of paleohydrology. The paper never makes concrete assertions about the "age" of the water, just suggestions for a method of testing the organic mater in water to help determine the age of isolated aquifers (NOT LAKES, which would have inconsistent levels due to evaporation and run-off.

:Andy, please start showing more discretion with the scope of your claims, and present better evidence. Bad arguments are a detraction from the integrity of this site, and your posts only end up hurting our argument.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:43 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Answer to Aschlafy ==

You asked: ''You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? ''

I don't think that the reason for the Old Earth theory to be true is that Young Earth creationism is false. But even if I followed the insinuated reasoning above, that shouldn't influence the topic of our discussion: ''counterexamples to an Old Earth''. On this talkpage, I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these counterexamples.

Just for an analogy. Often, you hear criticism of the infallibility of the Bible phrased as questions like ''Whom did Cain marry?'' ''What's the value of π according to 1 Kings 7:23?''. These questions can be phrased as ''counterexamples to Biblical inerrancy'':

*Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.

*The circumference and the diameter of a bronze vessel are given as 30 units and 10 units. Therefore, the Bible claims that π equals 3.

Are these valid ''counterexamples''? Would someone using these examples in a discussion impress his dialog partners? No , of course not! The first one makes a claim (''there were no other people'' - Adam and Eve had other children!) not made in the Bible - therefore erecting a straw-man, the second one talks about the features of a special object: maybe there was a brim? And ''3''' ''is'' an approximation for π.... a These so-called ''counterexamples'' are easily explained within the Biblical framework, and anyone using them shows just his ignorance in these matters. Therefore, repeating them and ignoring the given explanation is just a Mantric exercise for those who chose not to face reality: I hope that we can agree that these ''counterexamples'' are weak, and their weakness can be seen be everyone - believing in Biblical inerrancy or not.

I'm afraid that the same must be said about some of the ''counterexamples to an Old Earth'': the most impressive about them is their number. But the individual examples tend to be quite weak. What happens to a pupil using them in a discussion with his fellow students - or his teacher? He will be faced with further questions and explanations. For instance, look at:

*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago

Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.

To prevent this, you should perhaps elaborate the examples, and give refutations for the explanations of geologists.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:What if we assume that geologists really do think that the Great Lakes were made by icebergs 10,000 years ago instead of 10,000,000? There is still no proof of this, not even a computer model (which I assure you could be easily done). Your argument is much ado about nothing. [[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 14:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::See my post responding to this topic earlier. The model is there in the link. Other proof includes any of the numerous geological surveys that can be found by googling the topic in google scholar. Also, "much ado about nothing" is taken from Shakespearian slang for sex crazed. I find the assertion that Frank is a sex addict just because you disagree with him to be insulting.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:49 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Observations on some deceitful points in this article ==

Hi. I'm new here after finding this site from a google search on abortion. I also came across this, um, peculiar article. I looked at some of the facts presented and it looks deliberately misleading:

*For example, because freshwater lakes appear to be "young" (subjective term but we'll go with it) has no indication on the age of the earth.

*The earth's magnetic field is indeed declining, but when I go to that NASA site, in the ''same, exact'' paragraph, it says:

{{Cquote|There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million years according to geological evidence. The time between reversals seems to be growing longer, and is currently about 300,000 years or so. The last one of these happened about 770,000 years ago (0.77 on the graph). We are currently living during a period that has been called the Brunhes Magnetic Chron when the South Magnetic Pole is in the Northern Hemisphere. During the previous Matumaya Magnetic Chron, the North Magnetic Pole was in the Northern Hemisphere! Note that, from the polarity figure, at a time 0.94 million years ago (940,000 years ago) the magnetic field reverse itself by going nearly to 'zero' but then after a few thousand years it recovered and began to increase in strength. During the next 150,000 years it rose to a maximum strength and then began to decline. Notice, also, how fast the magnetic field recovers after it reaches 'zero', in some cases much less than 10,000 years.}}

.. but then the article has:

''Presently, Earth's magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. ... Not comparable to an old earth''

Kind of deceptive and misleading, if not blatantly lying, no?

Thanks for your feedback, [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 15:45, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

===Another observation===
Religulous Right [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=786079&oldid=786069 undid] an edit of mine, so I'll explain why I removed it. First off, it's highly speculative and opinionated to an individual:
*Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.
*Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth. Thanks [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:21, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
: I realize you're new here. However, you can't just walk into somebody's living room and strart deleting their work because you don't approve of it. Either you make your case here or contribute to the project with material before you start deleting stuff. If all new useres starting deleting everything they didn't like we would end up with no material. Also, if you didn't notice, there were four footnotes in the section you deleted. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:47, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::I made my case above, did you not read it? [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:50, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Hopefully I can address a few of your concerns here, Douglas.
:::*''Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.'' The only data I could find on this statement is [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/26/sat here], which does show a slow and steady decline within the past five years of critical reading skills, while mathematics has stayed steady the past three years. The average high school student's SAT score, given the data, has dropped, though I concede that there is perhaps not enough data to make a definitive statement on the matter.
:::*''Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth.'' Style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence, but linguistics and grammar do. The spoken word has become—for lack of a better word (heh)—lazy due to either lost interest in proper spoken word or lack of mental ability to comprehend and utilize it. I believe that one's speech capabilities are intertwined with how intelligent he is.
:::In the future, please wait for someone to address your points before making changes to a sensitive article. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:05, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Yes. However, I'm saying make your case BEFORE you start deleting points that could possibly be great insights. We don't want to be engaging in [[Liberal censorship]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for the aid, RR, but this user has been politely removed from the site. He may return in three days. Until then, RR, may I suggest you do something more productive than bicker with liberals on talk pages? I understand they are infuriating, but trust me, us admins have got it under control. Nothing gets by us. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 20:03, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
I didn't realize he was a liberal. I thought he just may have been a deluded conservative. Even they make me very angry! But you're right. I'll do something more productive. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 20:09, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::''Administrators'', RR, will offer instruction to other users, not other editors. Is that clear? I am disturbed by the continual similarities in your observations and those of past users we eventually found not to be of good intentions. Jacob's suggestion for you if far more polite than any I would offer at this moment, as I would have blocked you both for two days. While your contributions are appreciated the same as anyone else editing here, refrain from emulating other editors style, especially administrators, and completely refrain from bombast and unsupported statements, RR. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:38, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

== Sources ==

The sources for some of the ''counterexamples'' highlight their weaknesses:
* [http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."] is a broken link. I couldn't find the actual article. When stating sources, it is helpful (and add to their credibility) if basic information is given, like the date of the publishing, the name of the author, etc.
* [http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"] this source doesn't say anything about the age of the galaxy
* http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0 is a hint to the review from some Portuguese guy whoe writes about the book ''The Young Earth''. I commented this one out as the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] state ''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others.''
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:38, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

*I get an error for http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 , too
The reinsertion of the link I took out is somewhat surprising. Could someone define what is to be understood by an ''authoritative work''? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:19, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:: Frank, your comments are nit-picky stuff. This is a site for the open-minded, earnest search for the truth. A galaxy spinning in a direction opposite to its tail confounds old earth theories, and that problem is not to be dismissed because a reporter didn't fully address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:22, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Where are you getting this information, Andy? You shoot down other's intuition and demand fact when people oppose you, but you refuse to offer fact, when you've been backed into a corner. That isn't fair. intuition doesn't make an argument. You need REAL sources for these assertions. It isn't nit-picky to say that the links you provide for most citations DO NOT remotely support your point. [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:54 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Newsweek ==

I couldn't find the article in ''newsweek'' - some censorship on their part? I reread the somewhat bizarre discussion in the [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Instability_of_the_Solar_System|archived talk page]] of this article, and [http://www.google.de/#hl=en&q=%22the+planetary+orbits+will+indeed+become+chaotic%2C%22+laughlin&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=b52ff5a993c4ca35 googling] for the quote ''But the chances of orbits changing with less-than-catastrophic results are greater, notes Laughlin: "the planetary orbits will indeed become chaotic," with "the time required for chaos to significantly degrade the predictability of a system [on] the order of 5 million years."'', I came up with this article on [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/459781a.html Nature]. But the conclusion of this article is somewhat the opposite of the statement made here, as it's abstract states:

''Simulations show that orbital chaos can lead to collisions between Earth and the inner planets. But Einstein's tweaks to Newton's theory of gravity render these ruinous outcomes unlikely in the next few billion years.''

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

: Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:27, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::The quote above wasn't from some ''reporter'', but made by Gregory Laughlin (Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California), while your counterexample seems to be based on conclusion of the reporter of Newsweek. The factual information can be found here: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] and can be summarized as: yes such collisional trajectories exist, but they are even more improbable than thought earlier. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:34, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:12, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::::You give excellent advice: ''Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased''. As I stated above, I couldn't find the piece in ''Newsweek'' anymore. You are aware that reporters of popular magazines tend to prefer a sensational headline over a more level-headed one, i.e. ''doom incoming!'' over ''scientists say incoming doom unlikely''.
::::Fortunately, the very articles the Newsweek's journalist wrote about are still available, and I linked to them in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Here, you find the factual information, summarized by Gregory Laughlin:
::::'''Their [i.e. J. Laskar's & M. Gastineau's] work shows that the orbits of the terrestrial planets -- Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars -- have a roughly 99% chance of maintaining their current, well-ordered clockwork for the roughly 5 billion years that remain before the Sun evolves into a red giant and engulfs the inner Solar System''''''
::::Getting from this to ''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' or ''The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual'' is quite surprising.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:50, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

== Receding Moon ==

''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago ''

What's ''too close''? [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html According to NASA], the current rate is 3.8 cm/year<ref>[http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994.)</ref>. If we assume that this rate is constant, than it gained over the last billion years:

'''1,000,000,000 year × 3.8cm/year = 3,800,000,000cm = 38,000,000m = 38,000km'''

That roughly 10% of the current mean orbital radius of the [[Moon]] of 378,000km!

But the [[Roche limit]] of the system Earth-Moon is 18,000km - even 5 billion years ago the moon would not have been within this critical region.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

: 10% off the mean is a huge difference, which would have many dire effects. Note that it is bigger than 10% with respect to the closest distance. Have you looked into that? Also, Old Earth believers claim the age is far older than 1 billion years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== Pattern ==

*''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago '': that is wrong, a billion years ago, there was no problem with the Moon's orbit, even at the current rate of receding.
*''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '': that is deceptive, as geologists don't claim that the Great Lakes existed millions of years ago.
*''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' That is misleading, as they probability that the solar system maintains stable is 99%.

What is to be achieved by massing up a great number of flawed statements?
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:31, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:I've addressed your first point in the section above. Your second point does not rebut the truth of the statement. The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it. Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative. The solar system is unstable, and that is undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:12, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::''The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it.'' Science isn't about the public misconceptions of a theory, but the theory itself.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:33, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

== Links ==
<references />

== Strontium Isotopes ==

The concentration of strontium isotopes in seawater is fluctuating - and the concentration at various times is well known (and tabled). ''Long-term erosion'' is not the only cause of changing concentrations (e.g, have a look [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989AREPS..17..141V here]), so the assumption of a monotonous process is overly simplistic.

For short: not a good example, neither.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:49, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

:I added a fact tag, as there doesn't seem to be a source to back up the claim made in this ''counterexample''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:08, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Speculations ==

Dear Andy,
above, you write ''Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative.'' No, it is not - as the quoted article states, the probabilities are calculated using the best current models and the best simulations. So, ''purely speculative'' doesn't fit this point at all!

OTOH, I have to read: ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that.'' '''Colliding with the Earth before that'''? Have you done any calculation? Made a simple simulation? I doubt it! In fact, a simple back-of-an-envelope calculation would have shown that the Moon was far from ''colliding'' - even making the assumption of a constant rate of recession!

I'm prone to erase this speculative (or better. factually incorrect) statement, but I don't want to be accused of ''censorship''. Therefore, I just added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-tag, giving you the possibility to back up this sentence with ''facts''.

I'll do the same for the for the entry ''An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.'', as I couldn't find such an extrapolation anywhere, especially not in the given source.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:16, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

: Frank, your comments are longwinded, but did you respond to the defect in your comparison of the distance that Moon recedes to its mean distance from the Earth? Obviously the relevant comparison is to the closest distance of the Moon to the Earth. Please respond to that relevant issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:35, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

::*Assuming a constant rate of recession, I get the following values:
:::{|
|Recession of the Moon over one billion years (assuming a constant rate)||''' 38,000km'''
|-
|Current mean orbital radius:||'''378,000km'''
|-
|Current perigee:||'''363,000km'''
|}
::So, a billion years ago, the [[Moon]] would have been 10.05% (mean orbital radius) or 10.47% (closest distance) nearer to the Earth than it is now. Yes, there are consequence of such a closer distance (e.g., more and greater tidal movements), but I doubt that simple multicellular ocean-based life-forms would bother, so this isn't that relevant, is it?
::*Now, could you address the following problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::*JacobB deleted the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags I added to the two statements above without any further comment (or indeed coming up with sources/calculations/simulations). As he obviously doesn't like when comments of a sysop are reversed, I refrain from doing so. But I do think that these was the perfect place to insert such tags, as
:::#The statements aren't obvious, as they involve estimations and calculations
:::#I did research, and couldn't find any source to back up the claims
:::#In fact, according to my own estimations, these statements are wrong
:::#I stated the reasons for inserting the tags above
:::So, please, back up the statements, or reinsert the tags (hoping that someone else comes up with an explanation), or just delete the statements.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Solar Fusion ==

''The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.''

Could someone add some numbers to this? For me, it sounds just wrong, and I couldn't find any source for it. It's something different from the [[Faint young Sun problem]], I suppose. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:02, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

:http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/sun/sun-chapter5.html

:This article explains the life of the sun so far, with some great equations that explain the rate of H and He depletion in the solar fusion reaction. As you can see, the math supports a sun of at least 4.5 billion years old, with a life span that will extend for another 5 to 10 billion years.

:No doubt, Andy will chastise me for posting this, and demand that i be more open minded (ie. believe only what he believes and disregard "liberally biased math" in favor of the more biblically friendly "no real evidence at all")

== Geothermal Activity ==

''The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.''

Why not? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Questionable Probabilities ==

''If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here (as of June 28, 2010) has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with 93% probability.''

This seems to be modeled after [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]:

''Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that), then the odds that these counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is infinitesimally small (only a 6% chance that evolution is true with 54 possible counterexamples).''

There are quite a few problems with these statements:
*Why 10% in the first case, but only 5% in the second? Is it that otherwise these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with probability of 72% - and that value isn't convincing enough?
*Where do these probabilities come from? Is there a source which utters statements of which one in ten (or one in twenty) is correct?
*To assume that all these counterexamples are '''independent''' is ''very'' problematic!
*Generally, these counterexamples don't make predictions about unknowns, so, the validity of a statement like ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that'' can be calculated at this very moment: The probability that this counterexample is correct is ''zero'' as the statement is wrong.

I won't delete these ''"calculations"'', but I'll add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags to give the authors (or others) the opportunity to state their lines of reasoning: So, why are these probabilities reasonable estimates, and why are the ''odds far higher than that'' resp. why are these ''underestimates''?

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:03, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

: The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful. It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect. A number of 50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%. Regardless, the point is clear and educational.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:04, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

::*''The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful.'' Helpful for what?
::*''It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect.'' Stating probabilities like '''6%''' or '''93%''' is a claim to be precise. Getting such precise numbers by putting together some very rough estimates (''50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%'') isn't good statistical practice.
::*''Regardless, the point is clear and educational.'' What's the educational purpose of this point: ''add percentages to your statements because that sounds scientific'' ?
::*Above, I answered to your question on perigee vs. mean radius. Could you please address my problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::Thanks, [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind. If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it. But we're not going to censor the point itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::''Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. '' No, it's a ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia''. That's why I'm not posing random questions, but I'm questioning dubious and unsourced statements. I'm not doing so frivolously, but only after checking into the statements myself. As you made these statements, you should either be able to give the necessary calculations/estimations/simulations to affirm them, or you should '''delete''' these questionable counterexamples. To paraphrase one of your comments: '''Please respond to these relevant issues''' - as you expect us to answer your questions...
::::''The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind.'' I'm sorry but I'm getting the idea that this is a scatter-shot approach where most of the projectiles are expect to miss...
::::''If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it.'' No, I've no better way of stating it, as I don't think it can be stated correctly. May I add that deleting a wrong point from an ecyclopedia isn't censorship, but just due editorial process?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:29, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: No, Frank, you're challenging a mathematical truth here. We welcome suggestions on explaining truths better. [[Censorship]] is not welcome here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::*I don't doubt the mathematical truth that 1-0.925 ~ 0.93, but I doubt that this model is applicable. That's a difference.
::::::*Above, you asked me a question. I answered it - obviously satisfactorily, as there was no follow-up question of you. Now, I asked you two questions. Could you please try to answer them?
:::::::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::::::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::::::*The counterexamples concerned by these questions aren't self-evident, and the first statement seems to be plainly wrong to me. If you fail to address these problems, if any query for additional information (i.e., the <nowiki>{{fact]]</nowiki>-tags) is removed, you give the impression that the only reason for these examples to be included in the list is that you just like them. Is this sufficient for an encyclopedia?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:59, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
* The Earth-Moon collision is not a statemente about a future fact, but a statement about a past event. ''Given the current models'' of tidal friction, and extrapolating backwards ''ceteris paribus'', the Earth-Moon ''would have'' collided (or, being as close as you wish) about 109 years ago. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:23, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
** Or, more precisely, about 2 x 109 years ago, according to "Lunar nodal tide and distance to the Moon during the Precambrian", J.C.G. Walker, K.J. Zahnle - Nature, 1986. There may be other theories (even negating this); I found that using Google Academic with "tidal friction earth moon collision". [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:36, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:: Severe problems from the moon being in close proximity to the earth would arise well before the 2 billion years you cite.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

The [[Christian apologetics|evidence for Christianity and the Bible is extremely strong]] and Bible exegesis does not support an old earth and that is why traditional Judaism and most of the early Church fathers who spoke on the issue believe in a young earth. Plus, there is [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth plenty of evidence for a young earth.] The probability for an old earth is zero. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:20, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to evidence for a young earth has some interesting examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
:: Interesting but totally unscientific I'm afraid. And illogical. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:35, 12 February 2011 (EST)

::: I wonder what your score, "Darkmind", would be on an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openmindedness test]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:11, 12 February 2011 (EST)

== Dissipation of Underground Well Water ==

I was wondering if anyone has more information or explanation about the counterexample, "The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time." This is a very intriguing counterexample, but I don't quite understand it based on my understanding of entropy (from a classical thermodynamics perspective) and I could not find any supporting sources. Also, "high concentrations of underground well water" seems either vague or imprecisely worded (does this mean high ''volumes'', or is it high concentrations within a geographic area...). Thanks. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 15:21, 15 February 2011 (EST)
:As I understand it, all things tend to disorder over time. If the atheistic belief of a billions of years old earth were true, this water would have long since lost its order and would now be in a completely random, disordered state. This is clearly not the case and once again the evolutionists are proven wrong. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 15:37, 15 February 2011 (EST)
::OK, so it seems like we could expect any matter that is billions of years old to be in a completely random, disordered state by now. Maybe this counterexample doesn't need to refer specifically to underground well water. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 16:25, 15 February 2011 (EST)

:::The example of water is particularly striking. If I see a bucket full of water in a desert, then I can infer it has not been there more than a day or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:03, 15 February 2011 (EST)

== Merging of some counterexamples? ==

First of all I would like to thank the authors for your counterexamples. I allway accepted the Old Earth Theory, without thinking too much about it. This article has certainly given me some new perspectives.
But: I think quite a few of the counterexamples could be merged together. For instance: In Astronomy: Counterexample nr. 1 and nr. 6 say basically the same thing: the moons orbit is unstable, thus it could not have existed billions of years before, since it would have collided with the earth.
The same goes for counterexamples nr. 2 and 4. The basic statement is: spiral galaxies are rather young.
Similar redundancy can be seen in the Geology section.
I think it would improve the article if there were fewer counterexamples, that state basically the same thing. But that's just my two cents.
À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:54, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

: I looked at 1 and 6, and also 2 and 4, and each make different, distinct points. One could also complain about my use of "different, distinct" in my prior sentence as being somewhat redundant too, I suppose! But those adjectives convey individual meaning also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:: Thank you for your quick response. After rereading the different examples, I agree. They are different. So "redundant" was certainly the wrong expression (since English is not my first language, such imprecisions unfortunately occur...). But the examples are still similar to each other, producing (at least for me) a feeling of déja vu. What concerns me is that said déja vus kinda downplay the great new insights this article offers. They reduce the "newness" of the presented information. That's why I would suggest that for instance examples 1 and 6 be merged to something like this:
::''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the moon being as they are today. The Moon's orbit is '''also''' becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stabilit. '''Thus further disproving the theory of an Old Earth'''''
::It's just a minor formal change although I think it would improve the reading experience. À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 16:05, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, your suggestion is a good one, although it seems to require combining two separate problems into one. But both concern the Moon, so please combine them as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::::Done. I hope it is to your liking. If I have more time I might take a look at some other examples that could be merged. But I think I'll rather look at some history and/or literature articles fisrt. If I do find more potential mergers, I will of course discuss them here first. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 17:17, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

== Articles like this one Reflect Poorly on Conservapedia ==

I completely sympathize with using science to back up the idea of a young Earth, but much of what is posted here is, from any geologists standpoint, silly. I could have answered any of these problems after only my first course or two at university. I work as a research scientist at NASA and I have two degrees in geology and planetary science, and will be going back to school in the fall for my PhD. Prior to NASA I was a researcher at the SETI Institute. Although my main focus the surface of Mars (I am one of the geologists on the Mars Exploration Rover [Spirit and Opportunity] team), I have also spent years studying the Earth, so I know a little bit of what I am talking about.

I appreciate the concept of Conservapedia, as it is indeed true that the majority of Wikipedia users are indeed on the more liberal side of the fence. However, for Conservapedia to be respected as a true source of learning, it is important that it get its facts straight.

My main worry in articles such as this one (and the relativity and evolution ones) is that they really mislead students in what scientists actually know and understand. From what I can tell, many of the members on CP are students. If one of these students were to become enrolled in ANY accredited geology program, they would be in for quite a shock.

I just want to be clear, my aim here is not to disprove the idea of a young Earth as described in Genesis. My goal is to alert the reader that these “counterexamples” have mostly been solved (some were answered decades ago). Communication between scientists and the general public is often poor, and the result is people not being aware of the great discoveries that bright minds are making. I have taken the time to critique the “Counterexamples to an Old Earth” page. I am very tempted to attempt to critique the “Counterexamples to Evolution” and “Counterexamples to Relativity” pages, but as a geologist those fields are not my expertise, and I would not want to elaborate on a subject which I do not fully understand.

Virtually everything I am elaborating on here comes from dozens of courses and experience I have in this field, and as a result I used very few citations. I (along with any other geologist I know) could have answered at least 90% these counterexamples after their first year of university courses in the Earth sciences. If anyone has any questions about specific points I make I would be more than happy to look up and direct you to the relevant literature.

So here we go…

First of all, it does not take only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. “Old Earth” is not written down as doctrination as if it were a religious text (this is also true for evolution and relativity). The ideas that make up the old earth “theory” have changed drastically over time, even over the past few decades. For example, plate tectonics was not discovered until the 1970s, yet today form the main basis for how we understand how the way the Earth has evolved. The same goes with the significant role impacts have in changing global processes.

The beauty of science is that nothing is ever 100% true. Just because one portion of a theory fails doesn’t make the entire thing false. It just means that there is far more work to do in the field, meaning students still have plenty of opportunities when they finish university.

Now onto the “counterexamples”:

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

Geology

1. The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them[6].

These arches have not existed since the Earth’s creation. They have been forming over billions of years, and some collapsed while other haven’t.

2. An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches[7] with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.

See above.

3. The massive Great Lakes and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume.

There are no major lakes near the equator (other than Lake Victoria, if that meets your definition of a “great lake”)(this could have to do with the fact that most major landmasses are in the Northern hemisphere). Most large lakes did not exist even tens of thousands of years ago due to the last ice age. One of the reasons these lakes are draining is due to glacial rebound (the Earth’s surface is rising since the weight from the overlying glacier has been removed. This is the same process responsible for isostacy)

4. The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood.

Simply put, no. All lakes that are saline have no outflows. They are salty for the same reason the ocean is. Salt (and other minerals) can flow in, but the only way out is through evaporation. This is why Mono Lake, the Great Salt Lake, and the Dead Sea are salty, while the Great Lakes (and most other lakes) are not. It is not a coincidence that all salty lakes have no outflows.

5. The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time.

Aquifers are replenished from precipitation. A good percentage (almost a third) of rainwater percolates into the ground and refills underground water sources)

6. The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.

Actually, underground water is a muddy slurry prior to being cleaned. Anybody who dug a hole in their backyard would not find water that looked like it came from a faucet. Also, nobody has said that specific aquifers existed for millions of years. I suppose its theoretically possible that some may have, but many others have been around for thousands or tens of thousands of years.

7. Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation every century; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation[8]

Where is the source for this? The rotation of the Earth does change, but what is the level that is deemed necessary for “destabilization.” Unless one knows what is required for destabilization, this point is useless.

8. The lack of erosion between rock layers[9][10].

If there were signs of erosion, it would not be a layer. Heres an experiment: In a clear glass, place a layer of salt, a layer of chocolate powder, a layer of flour, and a layer of Gatorade mix (or any 4 different color powders). Notice the layers. Now put them in the same glass while you simulate erosion by constantly mixing the top layer of the powder.

There are many places where you don’t see layers. This would have happened during chaotic times of deposition (or times without deposition).

9. Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water procedes through the water cycle it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.

No. The water that gets evaporated out of the ocean is very close to pure water (other than trace elements with which it interacts with in the atmosphere). Therefore freshwater reserves are constantly re-supplied by a fresh clean source: precipitation. Also, most “contamination” in ocean water is due to human pollution, and this has only been significant for the past several hundred years.

10. Paraconformity and unconformity such as that seen at the Grand Canyon disprove the uniformitarian view of earth history.

No geologist believes in a 100% uniformitarian view of earth history, just as no geologist believes that everything happens catastrophically. Overall, things go slow and take time, but there are catastrophic events that disrupt this (i.e.: your Grand Canyon “examples”, major impacts like the one htat killed that dinosaurs, volcanic eruptions)

11. All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,[11] and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

If one is going to acknowledge that isotope data can be used to reliably date things, then they must use it in its entirety. You cant pick and choose when isotope dating is valid and when it is not. There is plenty of isotope data that suggests that the Earth is billions of years old, so why is isotope data acceptable when it argues for a young Earth but not for an old one?

12. The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago![Citation Needed]

I do not know much about strontium samples in water, but I would like to see the source for this data. See the previous response regarding isotope ages. In addition, many minerals that enter the ocean are recycled through seafloor movement and subduction. The seafloor moves away from underwater volcanic chains and into trenches, where it is recycled into the Earth’s mantle.

13. The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.[Citation Needed]

No. The half-life of Uranium 238 is 4.47 billion years. Some elements take even longer to decay. In addition, much of this heat stays in the Earth due to the convection in the outer core and within the lower mantle.

Also, a good amount of the initial heat within the Earth came from the Earth’s accretion (i.e. many separate impacts that eventually formed the Earth). Even before radiation was understood, scientists such as Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the Earth to be about 100 million years with this method. He was obviously wrong, because radiation had not yet been discovered and he could not incorporate radioactive heating into his calculations.

Most of these geology counterexamples are just arguing for a short timespan of individual features (lakes, archs, etc). This is akin to an elderly man getting a pimple, and one declaring, “well the pimple is only a week old, so the man must be only a week old as well!” A tad bit ludicrous, don’t you think?

Biology

All of these are more so counter-examples to evolution rather than an old Earth. I would debate that page as well, but as a geologist I will stick to the things on which I consider myself to understand thoroughly.

1. The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[12] music, personal letters,[13] quality of political debates,[14] the quality of news articles,[15] or any other measure.

Nobody would disagree that the average human today is far more intelligent than one living in the Dark Ages.

If this was true, it is completely irrelevant to the age of the Earth. Humans have been around for less than .05% of the age of the Earth. As fantastic as we like to think we are, humans are pretty insignificant to the overall history of the planet.

2. The age of onset of sexual maturity is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.[16]

Once again, this is absolutely irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

3. The high observed rate of extinctions of species[17] and harmful genetic mutations suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.

The high rate of species extinction is mostly due to humans killing them off.

4. The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying (CNN's Anderson Cooper began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);[18] many celebrities (such as American Idol winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)[18] and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)[19] increasingly experience premature graying or balding.

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth. Actually, this kind of seems irrelevant to age og the human race as well. Gray hair could be due to a number of environmental factors, or the fact that humans are much less physically active than we used to be.

5. The age of onset of cancer is markedly decreasing,[20] suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

6. 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 fossils that have been dated to be hundreds of millions of years old. There are also tree rings which have been dated to be 11,000 years old.

7. The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.

Dogs were tamed by humans from wolves, in a similar way we tamed cattle, sheep, and pigs. This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

8. Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[21]

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

9. Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.

Many things died during mass extinction events, but life still continues.

All of this about evolution is completely irrelevant to the Earth’s age. When one talks about the Earth, they are talking about the rock we stand on and what lies beneath, not the plants and animals on the surface. Most geologists couldn’t care less about living organisms, usually they just get in the way when we are trying to get a good view of a rock outcrop.

So there you go. I apologize for using the matter-of-fact tone of voice throughout this. I am used to writing scientific papers where one writes the facts and refutes what they are attempting to disprove without concern for what the reader may be feeling.

Again, I am not trying to disprove Genesis. I just want to help the students using this website to have a better idea of what us geologists think we know about the Earth.

On another note (to all sysops), I am very aware that this very lengthy entry puts me in a major violation of the 90/10 rule. I just became active on CP, and will be adding actual entries to the encyclopedia as I have the time to contribute.[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:29, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuttal ==

Rebuttal is indented below:
::My clarifications do your rebuttals are double indented -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

:The lunar landing disproved the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth, or collided with it: the composition of Moon lacks the iron prevalent on the Earth. In addition, the orbit has to be explained. Extrapolate back from current observations, and the Moon was too close too quickly.

::Actually, I'm glad you brought that up, I forgot to mention it. The lack of iron is a great piece of evidence for a collision-caused formation! Its believed that most of the iron on the Earth (the huge majority of it) is at our planet's core. The proposed impact would have stripped the Earth's iron-poor mantle but left the core intact. Furthermore, the massive amount of energy deposited would have left the moon as a molten sphere, wherein most of the iron would sink, as it is among the heaviest common elements.

::Im not really sure where you came up with that the lunar landing disproved this theory, when in fact it actually provided a lot of evidence for it. The moon and Earth were found to have near identical isotope signatures, whereas nearly every other body in the solar system (Mars, Vesta, the Centaurs, etc) have very different compositions.

::Extrapolating from current observations is easy, and it provides further evidence for an old Earth. The Moon is receding from the Earth at about 3.8cm/year. (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html). The Earth Moon average distance is ~385000km. Simply divide one into the other and you get a time of ~10billion years. Which is within the same order of magnitude as the time of Earth/solar system formation. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

:In other words, it's a counterexample but maybe there is some unobserved material that might explain it. Believe what you like, but that's not empirical science.

::I'll admit, I know very close to nothing about "dark matter" and "dark energy." Like i said, Im a geologist, not an astrophysicist. From what I understand, nobody really understands what either of these things are. I definitely agree with you that there is most definitely no empirical evidence (that Im aware of, at least). BUT, I don't see where the evidence is that spiral galaxies are young. It seems like quite an extraordinary claim to say that ALL spiral galaxies appear young (I dont even know what is meant by young, does that mean thousands, millions, or billions of years old?), and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

:"If our solar system were unstable" AND IF VERY OLD, THEN "we wouldn't be here." Precisely.

::I don't understand your point. Just because something has a possibility of becoming unstable does not mean that it has to happen. Given that there are at least 10^22 stars in the universe (100 billion stars per galaxy times 150 billion galaxies, both of which are very conservative numbers), there could have been millions of solar systems just like ours but became unstable and failed. Ours just so happens to be one that turned out fine. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be here right now debating its origins. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

:No, the "billions and billions" type of argument doesn't help. But that fallacious argument permeates much of the old earth "logic".

::Why not? You failed to provide a reason. It does permeate much of the old Earth "logic", because the Universe is a very, very, very, big place, with billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, many of which have planets. We are one of many (see above) solar systems and locations where life may exist. I think that this is the root problem that many young-Earther-ers have with the concept of an old Earth. The number of possible locations for life in the universe is huge. We (as in organisms on Earth) just so happened to make it through near impossible odds to continue to survive today. Statistically speaking, life likely does exist somewhere else in the universe (and who knows, maybe beings there are having a debate similar to ours right now!!). Even the Vatican agrees (http://spacefellowship.com/news/art15561/vatican-holds-conference-on-extraterrestrial-life.html) -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

:Did you research this issue with an open mind, or is your mind already made up? You might try taking the quiz at [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].

::Frankly, it seems that whoever wrote this list in the first place had their mind made up. The few citations that do exist in the article link to scientific literature that does not even support the "counterexamples" raised. But yes, I just took the quiz and posted my answers on my page. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

:I may get to your other points later, if I have time. I suggest you focus on your very best points for discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::I am happy to discuss everything I wrote, although I am better versed in things geology rather than biology or astrophysics. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::If anybody has major doubts about the points I raised, I'd really suggest taking an introductory geology class at your local community college. Even if it at all related to your career field, it can be really interesting stuff and is extremely useful when deciphering the BS we hear from our politicians every day (especially on issues related to oil reserves, global warming, and so forth).

::Andy, I know that I am not going to change your mind on the subject of an old Earth (perhaps you and I should both take the open mind quiz). My worry is that students may come to CP as a resource, and in viewing a page such as this would be very misled on what scientists actually know about the planet we live on. It is one thing to say that there are many unanswered questions in the geologic sciences, it is another to say that the opinions of over 99% of geologists say is wrong. Keep in mind, these are the very geologists who we trust to mine our metals, drill our oil, and find us fresh water to drink. [[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:26, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== suggestions about two counterexamples ==
I have some suggestions to improve two of these counterexamples. First, I'm not quite sure I understand why "a stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades" implies a young earth. Some clarification would be helpful. Secondly, I'm also not sure why an increase in premature graying implies a young earth. Additionally, the article only cites a couple of famous people who have grayed prematurely to prove this point. Is there any data to support this? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 23:52, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

: Additional evidence is welcome on the premature graying issue, but I don't think it can be seriously doubted. Observations about people graying at younger ages are typical, and the opposite is never heard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:07, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

: As to your other point, it's a matter of seeing a trend stop, which suggests a young rather than old earth. If a river dries up one spring, then it suggests the river was probably not flowing there for thousands of years, but was more likely the result of a rainy winter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:09, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Hello Mr. Schlafly, thank you for responding to my concerns. I still don't see how a trend stopping really implies anything about the age of the earth. The last two popes have not been Italian, and I don't see how that would say anything about the age of the earth. The decline in scientific advances could be due to any number of causes. Perhaps there has been a shift in focus towards making consumer goods within the currently available technologies. Perhaps investment in research has declined. Those are just two possible reasons. If it is true that people are graying earlier, it could be due to increased stress levels. These phenomena have plenty of possible interpretations. I don't see how trends stopping is inconsistent with an Old Earth. Could you perhaps clarify further? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 00:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

:You make valid points. Would you like to remove it based on your arguments? Feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:11, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion re: extinction rate ==

The extinction rate is far too high to be consistent with an Old Earth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point was that the values given for current extinction rates are not 'observed' rates. They are based on a few observed extinctions and extrapolated enormously based upon estimates as to the total number of species on the planet (most estimates suggest only a minority are currently known to science). Secondly, it would only be inconsistent if the extinction rate were to have remained constant throughout history relative to the rate of speciation. All the evidence points to a highly variable rate of extinction, with several periods of mass extinctions interspersed with long periods of relatively low extinction. The whole reason so much has been written recently on extinction is that the current estimates are unusually high, with the blame being placed upon human activities, particularly in terms of habitat loss. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:14, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

::In fact, looking over most of these counterexamples, they tend to be built upon incorrect assumptions (many assume that processes can only have occurred at a constant rate throughout history, when evidence suggests otherwise), or they are based upon dubious and unsupported claims (the one about people getting grey hair at an earlier age is based solely upon a handful of well-known examples with no scientific study of widespread trends at all. This entire article needs to be drastically re-worked. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:27, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade ==

How is this a ''Counterexampl to an Old Earth''? Does standard geology imply that rivers may not dry out over time? The opposite seems to be true: The face of the Earth is constantly under reconstruction...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:09, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

: The drying of a big river suggests a lack of very long term stability. It suggests the river has not been here for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:20, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

::It does no such thing. The discharge of rivers varies across all time-scales. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 16:42, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Inferences about a lack of equilibrium (i.e., lack of very long term stability) can be drawn from the drying of a major river like the Colorado River.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Even if it were 'unstable' in the 'long-term' (both highly ambiguous and undefined terms I might add), a lack of stability is not equal to non-existence. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 10:14, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Similar inferences are drawn in other contexts without objection. For example, if there are puddles of water on the ground in the morning, then it is reasonably inferred that it rained the night before, not every night for the last seven days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:04, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

When it next rains one might reasonably expect that a puddle will form in the same place and will once again dry up afterwards. How then can we possibly draw any conclusions about the age of the earth from looking at just one wet-dry cycle? We can't. Looking at one cycle doesn't tell us how many cycles there have been. The decreasing discharge of the river has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the question of the age of the earth. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 11:16, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. ==

Out of curiosity, how many counterexamples would it take to disprove a Young Earth?

:The same logic would apply. Do you know of any counterexamples that don't rely on circular logic or implausible assumptions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-06-03T14:14:47Z

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive 1|Archive 1]].'''''

----


I'd like to take out the phrase "asserted by atheists" from one of the Astronomy counterexamples, because it is not just atheists who believe in an [[Old Earth]] but also [[Old Earth Creationists]]. Any objections? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:37, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

== Freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young. ==

I'd like to have this point removed: The [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Countering_the_counter_examples|previous discussion]] has shown that it doesn't have any merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

As no one added to the previous discussion, I removed the point. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==

That's as bad as the example of the lakes: it reminds me of stating: ''he cannot be old, all his pimples are recent''. And the given references don't mention any ''extrapolation''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:03, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== Great Lakes ==

''The massive [[Great Lakes]] are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago''

That would be only a counterexample, if there were any geologist who thought them to be millions of years old. But it seems to be scientific consensus that these lakes were created during the last great ice age ca. 10,000 years ago. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:07, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== Salt Water Lakes ==

''The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]]''

No, it doesn't. It just suggests that [[endorheic]] lakes exist - lakes without an outflow to rivers or the ocean. If such a sea has an inflow, any dissolved material (like salts) will accumulate, while the water just evaporates.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:12, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:(see response below)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to above 4 comments ==

The 4 comments above are not substantive. In each case, the evidence is that a basic attribute of Earth ''is'' young, and nothing above supports the denial of this fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:No. But they are all counterarguments to the concreteness of your examples. The comments above are all traditionally accepted and easily verifiable scientific theories that offer a more plausible and widely accepted version of what happened than the case you present. Take for example, your point regarding inland saltwater lakes. You make the claim that they can ONLY exist with the aid of a global flood. This is CATEGORICALLY untrue, and demonstrates a dangerous predisposition to jump to conclusions without scientific fact. As mentioned above. The existence of said lakes is attributed to a chemical tendency known as distillation. Water is volatile and salt is not, therefore water evaporates out of the lake until the concentration of salt and other solids is extremely high. You can duplicate this experiment at home by taking a large jug of tap water and allowing it to sit in a hot, bright, dry room for a few weeks. When you return, the tap water will have an extremely high salinity, no ocean water needed.

:Conversely, the claim about a global flood has numerous holes in it. For one, there is no uniform layer of sediment that exists evenly in global geological strata. Such a layer would be inevitable if the world really was entirely submerged for any appreciable period of time. Secondly, and more importantly, there isn't enough water to fill the oceans AND cover the land. A global flood would require that there had once been a lot of water that is no longer present on earth, and this simply can't happen.

:I'm sorry to say, Andy, but YOUR arguments are not substantive.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:02, 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== What's a counterexample? ==

Maybe we have to start with the question above. I think it is reasonable to expect a ''counterexample'' to have some basic properties:

# it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.
# it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a ''Young Earth'' and finally:
# the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.

What are the theories saying? Here are two working definitions...

'''Old Earth''': Since the 18th century, scientist are convinced that the surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time. So, if there is a somewhat widespread geological feature, we expect that we can observe it in all stages of development.

'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped as we find it now by the Great Flood.

So, how do the examples fit in?

: Frank, the style of your remarks reflect a lack of an open mind towards this issue. You state, "Since the 18th century, scientist[s] are convinced ... over long periods of time." This is an historical distortion, and unhelpful to an open-minded discussion even if were true.

: I welcome open-minded discussions, but closed-minded discussions are often a waste of time. So please show some signs of an open mind about this first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

::I'm all for an open-minded discussion, too, and I'm sorry if my previous comment didn't convey this. So, let's drop the historical aspect, and just say:
::*'''Old Earth''': The surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time, and the rate of this change is roughly constant.
::*'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped by the Great Flood a couple of thousands years ago.

::But I hope you can agree with the basic properties (points 1-3 above) a ''counterexample to an Old Earth'' should have?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:46, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Frank, are you trying to refute any of the counterexamples? (In which case please provide some actual evidence) Your closed-minded insistence on causing argument seems pointless. [[User:ArnoldR|ArnoldR]] 08:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them ===
''Fragile natural arches'' exist, as there are always formed new ones. Old natural arches collapse, but [http://www.archmillennium.net/Baby_Arch.htm others] may [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kcb60/level2/lith61.html replace] them. What if there were no natural arches? I don't think that anybody had thought of them then.

=== The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ===
No geologists thinks that these lakes are millions of years old: they were created during the last ice age. Lakes are constantly created (e.g., when rivers change there bed), and happen to perish over time ([[Messel pit]]). Some are older than others ([[Baikal sea]]). The absence of new lakes would be quite puzzling for geologists! And Earth isn't as young as the youngest lake, but much older than the oldest one... (by FrankC)

: The "ice age theory" was a patch to try to explain away the counterexample. The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::It quite a leap to get from ''Great Lakes were created during the last ice age'' to ''all lakes were created during the last ice age''! There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the [[Great Flood]], though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.
::BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::: Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample.

::: As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here:

::::1. it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility.

::::2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally:

:::::No, this is not required, but illustrates a basic flaw in Old-Earth-thinking. Do you think mathematicians accept the validity of a hypothesis as long as no competing hypothesis has been proven? Of course not.

::::3. the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::''implausible ice age theory''? What's implausible about that? It just doesn't fit your YEC preconceptions.
::::::# Yes, I include the requirement of plausibility. What's the point of implausible counterexamples?
::::::# Is there a third theory I haven't heard of? If the Earth isn't young, it is old.
::::::# ''This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates''. No, I'm afraid, that' just obvious common sense.
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:55, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Frank, if you're not going to address my substantive points, then please don't respond. I make a direct analogy to mathematical hypotheses and you ignored it. Do you really think a mathematical hypothesis must be true if there is no proof for the converse?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:16, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::::I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the substantive points, so I try to make myself clearer by using the language of logic. So, let's '''C''' be a counterexample to the Old Earth Theory ('''OET'''). If '''C''' is true, than '''OET''' should be false, that's the first point:
::::::::'''1: ''' '''C ⇒ ~OET'''. If '''C''' is a good counterexample, than this equation should be obvious for everyone.
::::::::I thought the Young Earth Theory ('''YET''') and the Old Earth Theory to be complementary, so ''' YET = ~OET'''. Therefore obviously
::::::::'''2: ''' '''C ⇒ YET'''
::::::::And from ''1'', one gets
::::::::'''3: ''' ''' OET ⇒ ~C'''
::::::::I hope that this straightforward formulation is less confusing than my verbose ''the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. '' I formulated it this way, as all this isn't as ''exact'' as one would wish for: what's an obvious relation for one, needs quite an elaborate explanation for another.

::::::::But now for ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ''. As I said before, OET don't claim that these lakes existed millions of years ago, but are quite recent. You then said : '' The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.'' So, what's your ''counterexample'' now? Do you claim that the OET implies that all lakes are of the same age or were created in the same way? It seems to me that you are saying: ''As there are lakes near the Equator, the Great Lakes are millions of years old - according to OET''. But that's just a [[strawman]], and shouldn't be included in the list.
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood ===
As said earlier, saltwater lakes are explained easily as being [[endorheic]]. If there were no saltwater seas, then the endorheic basins would have to be very unstable, preventing bodies of water to become older than a couple of hundred years. This would imply quite a geologic activity, which we don't observe. But how do these inland saltwater lakes fit within the theory of a ''Young Earth''? Do you imply that the Earth was inundated by a salty ocean for forty days and nights? How could anything survive - and multiply - on this salty ground when the water receded? To explain these lakes with a global flood poses quite a few problems.
So, this ''counterexample'' is especially unconvincing, as it fails all three basic properties...

=== An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age ===
Has anyone done this extrapolation? Without it, the point is moot.

At the moment, the article impresses with the quantity of examples. But the obvious weakness of some examples distracts from other examples which may have some merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lakes again ==

*It was repeatedly explained why the ''Great Lakes'' are no countexample to an Old Earth.
*Aschlafly concluded: ''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample."''
*Aschlafly, could you reformulate the ''counterexample'' in question? Thanks.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:49, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: There are large freshwater lakes near the Equator. Do you think an "Ice Age" formed them also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::To quote myself: ''There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the Great Flood, though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.'' [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:15, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You may quote yourself, but your answer was less than direct. You seem to admit that that the Ice Age did NOT form the large freshwater lakes near the Equator. But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also. That defies explanation consistent with an Old Earth theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Pfft, in the 70's [[Liberal|liberals]] were saying that the earth was cooling. Now, its supposedly warming. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their tune about the "Ice Age" in 40 years.

''But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also.''

I'm afraid that your confidence is misplaced - the examinations and tests of geologists lead to different results. Let's have a closer look - what lakes are we talking about? Near to the equator - say in the strip between 5° North and 5° South - the number of lakes of considerable size isn't big:
*[[South America]]: none
*[[Indonesia]]: '''Lake Toba''' on [[Sumatra]], '''Lake Tempe''' and '''Lake Poso''' on [[Sulawesi]]. Lake Toba is the largest volcanic lake in the world, resulting from an eruption 69,000 - 78,000 years ago. So, it's older (according to the test of geologists) than the last [[Ice Age]], but fairly young on a geological scale. Lake Tempe is a flood plain of an average depth of 5m, so it's quite volatile in geological standards. Lake Poso is a tectonic lake and regarded as ancient (1 - 2 million years).
*[[Africa]]: Here you find the [[African Great Lakes]], in the area of our interest especially, the [[Lake Victoria]], [[Lake Tanganyika]], [[Lake Turkana]], [[Lake Albert]], [[Lake Kivu]], and [[Lake Edward]]. These are located in the [[Great Rift Valley]], which is - according to geologists - a continental rift zone. Though you may call ''Lake Victoria'' young - as it's only 500,000 old and dried out a couple of times, the other lakes are estimated to be roughly 4 million years old.

All of these lakes are older than the American [[Great Lakes]]. So, I repeat my request: please, remove ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '' from the list of counterexamples:
* it is misleading, as ''atheistic geologists'' don't claim that these lakes ''have existed millions of years ago''
* your alternate approach (''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample'') doesn't work neither, as there are ancient (≈ 4 million years) freshwater lakes.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:47, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.

: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::''None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.''
::On the contrary, there is little doubt under geologists that all of the lakes above are not young (with the possible exception of Lake Tempe) . Every textbook on geology will tell you that the oldes of Great African Lakes were formed ≈ 4 mya ago, with Lake Victoria being the youngest of the lot<ref>John Reader, ''Africa'', National Geographic 9/2001</ref>. The [http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0601-09= Toba event] took place ≈ 70,000 years ago.
::''Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.''
::This doesn't make sense. Carbon dating is only used on relatively young (holecenic) freshwater sources. (More in a separate section)
::''I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory?''
::I thought that I've answered this question, too, but I'll elaborate:
::*no, arguing against one theory doesn't defend the other. But both theories can't be true simultaneously - though both could be false. OTOH, there aren't that many concurring theories out there. And entries like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=784643&oldid=784484 this] of your fellow sysop ''Conservative'' show that on this page, Old Earth Theory and Young Earth Theory are put against each other.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? Of course not. The Old Earth theory is disproved by the numerous counterexamples, and creationism is irrelevant to that disproof or a reasoned discussion of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==

What's implausible about it? The article [[Ice Age]] doesn't say anything about plausibility. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:51, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last [[Ice Age]] nor for the [[Great Flood]].

::The creation of the Great Lakes however can be studied by geologists who examined the history of this area. Their surveys paint an interesting picture of the formation of the Great Lakes ([http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/damery1/gl_form.html here] an introduction).

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, you repeatedly reason in an "either-or" manner, as though the only two possibilities are the [[Old Earth]] and your view of [[creationism]]. That's not logical or scientific. Both could be wrong. No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.

::: If the Ice Age theory provided a plausible explanation for the Great Lakes and other observed formations (such as the Mississippi bluffs), then a computer simulation would be easy to build. But it hasn't been done, which suggests that the Ice Age theory is implausible in explaining all that is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::*both could be false, both aren't simulated globally
:::*are you ''confident'' that such a simulation could be easily build? The formation of the Great Lakes has been simulatied - that's something I'm confident of.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:24, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::(Could you please answer to my substantive edits in the previous section? Thanks. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:25, 2 June 2010 (EDT))

:::: Computer simulations would be easy to make. scientists clearly have access to computers. If they're so confident of their "theories" why not make an accurate simulation and add that as proof? I think they know there irratioinal beliefs won't help up to scruteny. FrankC, just have an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:36, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Actually, this PDF contains the results of just such a survey: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V72-48F04CM-26&_user=10&_coverDate=08/20/1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1478705466&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4e83cc89688e873bc3fa1889ab02a7b4&searchtype=a

:::::Andy, and ReligiousRight, I would suggest you both take your own advice on open-mindedness and try to read it.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

:::::And, just as a side note: As a programmer, I can assure you that simulating systems that involve literally millions of variables is about as easy as as it sounds.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages ==

# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

The source doesn't corroborate the claim. The authors of the study seem to be well aware of the limits of [[carbon dating]], and don't try to apply it to pre-Holecene water. And of course, a reservoir can be older than the water it holds (you can't judge the age of the glass by the vintage of the wine!).

Conservapedia's article on [[carbon dating]] highlights the fact that it can't be used to determine ages older than 50,000 years.

nota bene: the source shouldn't be used for ''lakes'' at all: it mentions lakes only in a passing reference to the founder of the science of dating water, Franke and Deevey.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:08, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

<references/>

:"14C dating of the DIC in palaeowater is indispensable for paleohydrological and palaeoclimatologi-
cal reconstructions and for applied hydrogeological studies. Numerical mass-transport modeling
profits from the improvement of hydrogeological conceptions and the revision of boundary condi-
tions. In the case of non-steady-state recharge conditions, maximum and minimum recharge rates in
the past may be estimated from 14C dates of DIC via numerical modeling.

:14C dates measured from DIC enable the determination of regional geohydraulic parameters and
allow water balances to be checked. In most applications, complementary environmental isotope
analyses of hydrogen and oxygen together with general hydrochemical measurements are recom-
mended to facilitate a comprehensive and thorough interpretation of the 14C dates (Cark and Fritz
1997).

:A primary task towards a significant improvement in the applied 14C dating of groundwater remains
with the development of procedures that will enable 14C activities measured from DIC to be confi-
dently included in the calibration of finite-element and compartmental modeling exercises."

:This is a quote from the conclusion of the paper Andy cited to make his point about C-14 testing. In short, the conclusion says that it is necessary to further develop C-14 testing for dissolved carbons so as to improve our understanding of paleohydrology. The paper never makes concrete assertions about the "age" of the water, just suggestions for a method of testing the organic mater in water to help determine the age of isolated aquifers (NOT LAKES, which would have inconsistent levels due to evaporation and run-off.

:Andy, please start showing more discretion with the scope of your claims, and present better evidence. Bad arguments are a detraction from the integrity of this site, and your posts only end up hurting our argument.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:43 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Answer to Aschlafy ==

You asked: ''You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? ''

I don't think that the reason for the Old Earth theory to be true is that Young Earth creationism is false. But even if I followed the insinuated reasoning above, that shouldn't influence the topic of our discussion: ''counterexamples to an Old Earth''. On this talkpage, I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these counterexamples.

Just for an analogy. Often, you hear criticism of the infallibility of the Bible phrased as questions like ''Whom did Cain marry?'' ''What's the value of π according to 1 Kings 7:23?''. These questions can be phrased as ''counterexamples to Biblical inerrancy'':

*Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.

*The circumference and the diameter of a bronze vessel are given as 30 units and 10 units. Therefore, the Bible claims that π equals 3.

Are these valid ''counterexamples''? Would someone using these examples in a discussion impress his dialog partners? No , of course not! The first one makes a claim (''there were no other people'' - Adam and Eve had other children!) not made in the Bible - therefore erecting a straw-man, the second one talks about the features of a special object: maybe there was a brim? And ''3''' ''is'' an approximation for π.... a These so-called ''counterexamples'' are easily explained within the Biblical framework, and anyone using them shows just his ignorance in these matters. Therefore, repeating them and ignoring the given explanation is just a Mantric exercise for those who chose not to face reality: I hope that we can agree that these ''counterexamples'' are weak, and their weakness can be seen be everyone - believing in Biblical inerrancy or not.

I'm afraid that the same must be said about some of the ''counterexamples to an Old Earth'': the most impressive about them is their number. But the individual examples tend to be quite weak. What happens to a pupil using them in a discussion with his fellow students - or his teacher? He will be faced with further questions and explanations. For instance, look at:

*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago

Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.

To prevent this, you should perhaps elaborate the examples, and give refutations for the explanations of geologists.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:What if we assume that geologists really do think that the Great Lakes were made by icebergs 10,000 years ago instead of 10,000,000? There is still no proof of this, not even a computer model (which I assure you could be easily done). Your argument is much ado about nothing. [[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 14:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::See my post responding to this topic earlier. The model is there in the link. Other proof includes any of the numerous geological surveys that can be found by googling the topic in google scholar. Also, "much ado about nothing" is taken from Shakespearian slang for sex crazed. I find the assertion that Frank is a sex addict just because you disagree with him to be insulting.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:49 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Observations on some deceitful points in this article ==

Hi. I'm new here after finding this site from a google search on abortion. I also came across this, um, peculiar article. I looked at some of the facts presented and it looks deliberately misleading:

*For example, because freshwater lakes appear to be "young" (subjective term but we'll go with it) has no indication on the age of the earth.

*The earth's magnetic field is indeed declining, but when I go to that NASA site, in the ''same, exact'' paragraph, it says:

{{Cquote|There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million years according to geological evidence. The time between reversals seems to be growing longer, and is currently about 300,000 years or so. The last one of these happened about 770,000 years ago (0.77 on the graph). We are currently living during a period that has been called the Brunhes Magnetic Chron when the South Magnetic Pole is in the Northern Hemisphere. During the previous Matumaya Magnetic Chron, the North Magnetic Pole was in the Northern Hemisphere! Note that, from the polarity figure, at a time 0.94 million years ago (940,000 years ago) the magnetic field reverse itself by going nearly to 'zero' but then after a few thousand years it recovered and began to increase in strength. During the next 150,000 years it rose to a maximum strength and then began to decline. Notice, also, how fast the magnetic field recovers after it reaches 'zero', in some cases much less than 10,000 years.}}

.. but then the article has:

''Presently, Earth's magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. ... Not comparable to an old earth''

Kind of deceptive and misleading, if not blatantly lying, no?

Thanks for your feedback, [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 15:45, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

===Another observation===
Religulous Right [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=786079&oldid=786069 undid] an edit of mine, so I'll explain why I removed it. First off, it's highly speculative and opinionated to an individual:
*Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.
*Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth. Thanks [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:21, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
: I realize you're new here. However, you can't just walk into somebody's living room and strart deleting their work because you don't approve of it. Either you make your case here or contribute to the project with material before you start deleting stuff. If all new useres starting deleting everything they didn't like we would end up with no material. Also, if you didn't notice, there were four footnotes in the section you deleted. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:47, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::I made my case above, did you not read it? [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:50, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Hopefully I can address a few of your concerns here, Douglas.
:::*''Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.'' The only data I could find on this statement is [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/26/sat here], which does show a slow and steady decline within the past five years of critical reading skills, while mathematics has stayed steady the past three years. The average high school student's SAT score, given the data, has dropped, though I concede that there is perhaps not enough data to make a definitive statement on the matter.
:::*''Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth.'' Style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence, but linguistics and grammar do. The spoken word has become—for lack of a better word (heh)—lazy due to either lost interest in proper spoken word or lack of mental ability to comprehend and utilize it. I believe that one's speech capabilities are intertwined with how intelligent he is.
:::In the future, please wait for someone to address your points before making changes to a sensitive article. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:05, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Yes. However, I'm saying make your case BEFORE you start deleting points that could possibly be great insights. We don't want to be engaging in [[Liberal censorship]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for the aid, RR, but this user has been politely removed from the site. He may return in three days. Until then, RR, may I suggest you do something more productive than bicker with liberals on talk pages? I understand they are infuriating, but trust me, us admins have got it under control. Nothing gets by us. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 20:03, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
I didn't realize he was a liberal. I thought he just may have been a deluded conservative. Even they make me very angry! But you're right. I'll do something more productive. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 20:09, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::''Administrators'', RR, will offer instruction to other users, not other editors. Is that clear? I am disturbed by the continual similarities in your observations and those of past users we eventually found not to be of good intentions. Jacob's suggestion for you if far more polite than any I would offer at this moment, as I would have blocked you both for two days. While your contributions are appreciated the same as anyone else editing here, refrain from emulating other editors style, especially administrators, and completely refrain from bombast and unsupported statements, RR. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:38, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

== Sources ==

The sources for some of the ''counterexamples'' highlight their weaknesses:
* [http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."] is a broken link. I couldn't find the actual article. When stating sources, it is helpful (and add to their credibility) if basic information is given, like the date of the publishing, the name of the author, etc.
* [http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"] this source doesn't say anything about the age of the galaxy
* http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0 is a hint to the review from some Portuguese guy whoe writes about the book ''The Young Earth''. I commented this one out as the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] state ''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others.''
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:38, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

*I get an error for http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 , too
The reinsertion of the link I took out is somewhat surprising. Could someone define what is to be understood by an ''authoritative work''? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:19, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:: Frank, your comments are nit-picky stuff. This is a site for the open-minded, earnest search for the truth. A galaxy spinning in a direction opposite to its tail confounds old earth theories, and that problem is not to be dismissed because a reporter didn't fully address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:22, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Where are you getting this information, Andy? You shoot down other's intuition and demand fact when people oppose you, but you refuse to offer fact, when you've been backed into a corner. That isn't fair. intuition doesn't make an argument. You need REAL sources for these assertions. It isn't nit-picky to say that the links you provide for most citations DO NOT remotely support your point. [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:54 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Newsweek ==

I couldn't find the article in ''newsweek'' - some censorship on their part? I reread the somewhat bizarre discussion in the [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Instability_of_the_Solar_System|archived talk page]] of this article, and [http://www.google.de/#hl=en&q=%22the+planetary+orbits+will+indeed+become+chaotic%2C%22+laughlin&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=b52ff5a993c4ca35 googling] for the quote ''But the chances of orbits changing with less-than-catastrophic results are greater, notes Laughlin: "the planetary orbits will indeed become chaotic," with "the time required for chaos to significantly degrade the predictability of a system [on] the order of 5 million years."'', I came up with this article on [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/459781a.html Nature]. But the conclusion of this article is somewhat the opposite of the statement made here, as it's abstract states:

''Simulations show that orbital chaos can lead to collisions between Earth and the inner planets. But Einstein's tweaks to Newton's theory of gravity render these ruinous outcomes unlikely in the next few billion years.''

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

: Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:27, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::The quote above wasn't from some ''reporter'', but made by Gregory Laughlin (Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California), while your counterexample seems to be based on conclusion of the reporter of Newsweek. The factual information can be found here: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] and can be summarized as: yes such collisional trajectories exist, but they are even more improbable than thought earlier. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:34, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:12, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::::You give excellent advice: ''Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased''. As I stated above, I couldn't find the piece in ''Newsweek'' anymore. You are aware that reporters of popular magazines tend to prefer a sensational headline over a more level-headed one, i.e. ''doom incoming!'' over ''scientists say incoming doom unlikely''.
::::Fortunately, the very articles the Newsweek's journalist wrote about are still available, and I linked to them in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Here, you find the factual information, summarized by Gregory Laughlin:
::::'''Their [i.e. J. Laskar's & M. Gastineau's] work shows that the orbits of the terrestrial planets -- Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars -- have a roughly 99% chance of maintaining their current, well-ordered clockwork for the roughly 5 billion years that remain before the Sun evolves into a red giant and engulfs the inner Solar System''''''
::::Getting from this to ''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' or ''The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual'' is quite surprising.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:50, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

== Receding Moon ==

''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago ''

What's ''too close''? [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html According to NASA], the current rate is 3.8 cm/year<ref>[http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994.)</ref>. If we assume that this rate is constant, than it gained over the last billion years:

'''1,000,000,000 year × 3.8cm/year = 3,800,000,000cm = 38,000,000m = 38,000km'''

That roughly 10% of the current mean orbital radius of the [[Moon]] of 378,000km!

But the [[Roche limit]] of the system Earth-Moon is 18,000km - even 5 billion years ago the moon would not have been within this critical region.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

: 10% off the mean is a huge difference, which would have many dire effects. Note that it is bigger than 10% with respect to the closest distance. Have you looked into that? Also, Old Earth believers claim the age is far older than 1 billion years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== Pattern ==

*''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago '': that is wrong, a billion years ago, there was no problem with the Moon's orbit, even at the current rate of receding.
*''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '': that is deceptive, as geologists don't claim that the Great Lakes existed millions of years ago.
*''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' That is misleading, as they probability that the solar system maintains stable is 99%.

What is to be achieved by massing up a great number of flawed statements?
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:31, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:I've addressed your first point in the section above. Your second point does not rebut the truth of the statement. The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it. Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative. The solar system is unstable, and that is undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:12, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::''The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it.'' Science isn't about the public misconceptions of a theory, but the theory itself.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:33, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

== Links ==
<references />

== Strontium Isotopes ==

The concentration of strontium isotopes in seawater is fluctuating - and the concentration at various times is well known (and tabled). ''Long-term erosion'' is not the only cause of changing concentrations (e.g, have a look [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989AREPS..17..141V here]), so the assumption of a monotonous process is overly simplistic.

For short: not a good example, neither.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:49, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

:I added a fact tag, as there doesn't seem to be a source to back up the claim made in this ''counterexample''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:08, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Speculations ==

Dear Andy,
above, you write ''Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative.'' No, it is not - as the quoted article states, the probabilities are calculated using the best current models and the best simulations. So, ''purely speculative'' doesn't fit this point at all!

OTOH, I have to read: ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that.'' '''Colliding with the Earth before that'''? Have you done any calculation? Made a simple simulation? I doubt it! In fact, a simple back-of-an-envelope calculation would have shown that the Moon was far from ''colliding'' - even making the assumption of a constant rate of recession!

I'm prone to erase this speculative (or better. factually incorrect) statement, but I don't want to be accused of ''censorship''. Therefore, I just added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-tag, giving you the possibility to back up this sentence with ''facts''.

I'll do the same for the for the entry ''An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.'', as I couldn't find such an extrapolation anywhere, especially not in the given source.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:16, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

: Frank, your comments are longwinded, but did you respond to the defect in your comparison of the distance that Moon recedes to its mean distance from the Earth? Obviously the relevant comparison is to the closest distance of the Moon to the Earth. Please respond to that relevant issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:35, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

::*Assuming a constant rate of recession, I get the following values:
:::{|
|Recession of the Moon over one billion years (assuming a constant rate)||''' 38,000km'''
|-
|Current mean orbital radius:||'''378,000km'''
|-
|Current perigee:||'''363,000km'''
|}
::So, a billion years ago, the [[Moon]] would have been 10.05% (mean orbital radius) or 10.47% (closest distance) nearer to the Earth than it is now. Yes, there are consequence of such a closer distance (e.g., more and greater tidal movements), but I doubt that simple multicellular ocean-based life-forms would bother, so this isn't that relevant, is it?
::*Now, could you address the following problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::*JacobB deleted the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags I added to the two statements above without any further comment (or indeed coming up with sources/calculations/simulations). As he obviously doesn't like when comments of a sysop are reversed, I refrain from doing so. But I do think that these was the perfect place to insert such tags, as
:::#The statements aren't obvious, as they involve estimations and calculations
:::#I did research, and couldn't find any source to back up the claims
:::#In fact, according to my own estimations, these statements are wrong
:::#I stated the reasons for inserting the tags above
:::So, please, back up the statements, or reinsert the tags (hoping that someone else comes up with an explanation), or just delete the statements.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Solar Fusion ==

''The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.''

Could someone add some numbers to this? For me, it sounds just wrong, and I couldn't find any source for it. It's something different from the [[Faint young Sun problem]], I suppose. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:02, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

:http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/sun/sun-chapter5.html

:This article explains the life of the sun so far, with some great equations that explain the rate of H and He depletion in the solar fusion reaction. As you can see, the math supports a sun of at least 4.5 billion years old, with a life span that will extend for another 5 to 10 billion years.

:No doubt, Andy will chastise me for posting this, and demand that i be more open minded (ie. believe only what he believes and disregard "liberally biased math" in favor of the more biblically friendly "no real evidence at all")

== Geothermal Activity ==

''The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.''

Why not? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Questionable Probabilities ==

''If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here (as of June 28, 2010) has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with 93% probability.''

This seems to be modeled after [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]:

''Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that), then the odds that these counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is infinitesimally small (only a 6% chance that evolution is true with 54 possible counterexamples).''

There are quite a few problems with these statements:
*Why 10% in the first case, but only 5% in the second? Is it that otherwise these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with probability of 72% - and that value isn't convincing enough?
*Where do these probabilities come from? Is there a source which utters statements of which one in ten (or one in twenty) is correct?
*To assume that all these counterexamples are '''independent''' is ''very'' problematic!
*Generally, these counterexamples don't make predictions about unknowns, so, the validity of a statement like ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that'' can be calculated at this very moment: The probability that this counterexample is correct is ''zero'' as the statement is wrong.

I won't delete these ''"calculations"'', but I'll add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags to give the authors (or others) the opportunity to state their lines of reasoning: So, why are these probabilities reasonable estimates, and why are the ''odds far higher than that'' resp. why are these ''underestimates''?

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:03, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

: The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful. It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect. A number of 50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%. Regardless, the point is clear and educational.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:04, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

::*''The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful.'' Helpful for what?
::*''It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect.'' Stating probabilities like '''6%''' or '''93%''' is a claim to be precise. Getting such precise numbers by putting together some very rough estimates (''50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%'') isn't good statistical practice.
::*''Regardless, the point is clear and educational.'' What's the educational purpose of this point: ''add percentages to your statements because that sounds scientific'' ?
::*Above, I answered to your question on perigee vs. mean radius. Could you please address my problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::Thanks, [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind. If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it. But we're not going to censor the point itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::''Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. '' No, it's a ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia''. That's why I'm not posing random questions, but I'm questioning dubious and unsourced statements. I'm not doing so frivolously, but only after checking into the statements myself. As you made these statements, you should either be able to give the necessary calculations/estimations/simulations to affirm them, or you should '''delete''' these questionable counterexamples. To paraphrase one of your comments: '''Please respond to these relevant issues''' - as you expect us to answer your questions...
::::''The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind.'' I'm sorry but I'm getting the idea that this is a scatter-shot approach where most of the projectiles are expect to miss...
::::''If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it.'' No, I've no better way of stating it, as I don't think it can be stated correctly. May I add that deleting a wrong point from an ecyclopedia isn't censorship, but just due editorial process?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:29, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: No, Frank, you're challenging a mathematical truth here. We welcome suggestions on explaining truths better. [[Censorship]] is not welcome here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::*I don't doubt the mathematical truth that 1-0.925 ~ 0.93, but I doubt that this model is applicable. That's a difference.
::::::*Above, you asked me a question. I answered it - obviously satisfactorily, as there was no follow-up question of you. Now, I asked you two questions. Could you please try to answer them?
:::::::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::::::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::::::*The counterexamples concerned by these questions aren't self-evident, and the first statement seems to be plainly wrong to me. If you fail to address these problems, if any query for additional information (i.e., the <nowiki>{{fact]]</nowiki>-tags) is removed, you give the impression that the only reason for these examples to be included in the list is that you just like them. Is this sufficient for an encyclopedia?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:59, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
* The Earth-Moon collision is not a statemente about a future fact, but a statement about a past event. ''Given the current models'' of tidal friction, and extrapolating backwards ''ceteris paribus'', the Earth-Moon ''would have'' collided (or, being as close as you wish) about 109 years ago. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:23, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
** Or, more precisely, about 2 x 109 years ago, according to "Lunar nodal tide and distance to the Moon during the Precambrian", J.C.G. Walker, K.J. Zahnle - Nature, 1986. There may be other theories (even negating this); I found that using Google Academic with "tidal friction earth moon collision". [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:36, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:: Severe problems from the moon being in close proximity to the earth would arise well before the 2 billion years you cite.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

The [[Christian apologetics|evidence for Christianity and the Bible is extremely strong]] and Bible exegesis does not support an old earth and that is why traditional Judaism and most of the early Church fathers who spoke on the issue believe in a young earth. Plus, there is [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth plenty of evidence for a young earth.] The probability for an old earth is zero. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:20, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to evidence for a young earth has some interesting examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
:: Interesting but totally unscientific I'm afraid. And illogical. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:35, 12 February 2011 (EST)

::: I wonder what your score, "Darkmind", would be on an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openmindedness test]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:11, 12 February 2011 (EST)

== Dissipation of Underground Well Water ==

I was wondering if anyone has more information or explanation about the counterexample, "The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time." This is a very intriguing counterexample, but I don't quite understand it based on my understanding of entropy (from a classical thermodynamics perspective) and I could not find any supporting sources. Also, "high concentrations of underground well water" seems either vague or imprecisely worded (does this mean high ''volumes'', or is it high concentrations within a geographic area...). Thanks. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 15:21, 15 February 2011 (EST)
:As I understand it, all things tend to disorder over time. If the atheistic belief of a billions of years old earth were true, this water would have long since lost its order and would now be in a completely random, disordered state. This is clearly not the case and once again the evolutionists are proven wrong. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 15:37, 15 February 2011 (EST)
::OK, so it seems like we could expect any matter that is billions of years old to be in a completely random, disordered state by now. Maybe this counterexample doesn't need to refer specifically to underground well water. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 16:25, 15 February 2011 (EST)

:::The example of water is particularly striking. If I see a bucket full of water in a desert, then I can infer it has not been there more than a day or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:03, 15 February 2011 (EST)

== Merging of some counterexamples? ==

First of all I would like to thank the authors for your counterexamples. I allway accepted the Old Earth Theory, without thinking too much about it. This article has certainly given me some new perspectives.
But: I think quite a few of the counterexamples could be merged together. For instance: In Astronomy: Counterexample nr. 1 and nr. 6 say basically the same thing: the moons orbit is unstable, thus it could not have existed billions of years before, since it would have collided with the earth.
The same goes for counterexamples nr. 2 and 4. The basic statement is: spiral galaxies are rather young.
Similar redundancy can be seen in the Geology section.
I think it would improve the article if there were fewer counterexamples, that state basically the same thing. But that's just my two cents.
À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:54, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

: I looked at 1 and 6, and also 2 and 4, and each make different, distinct points. One could also complain about my use of "different, distinct" in my prior sentence as being somewhat redundant too, I suppose! But those adjectives convey individual meaning also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:: Thank you for your quick response. After rereading the different examples, I agree. They are different. So "redundant" was certainly the wrong expression (since English is not my first language, such imprecisions unfortunately occur...). But the examples are still similar to each other, producing (at least for me) a feeling of déja vu. What concerns me is that said déja vus kinda downplay the great new insights this article offers. They reduce the "newness" of the presented information. That's why I would suggest that for instance examples 1 and 6 be merged to something like this:
::''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the moon being as they are today. The Moon's orbit is '''also''' becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stabilit. '''Thus further disproving the theory of an Old Earth'''''
::It's just a minor formal change although I think it would improve the reading experience. À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 16:05, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, your suggestion is a good one, although it seems to require combining two separate problems into one. But both concern the Moon, so please combine them as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::::Done. I hope it is to your liking. If I have more time I might take a look at some other examples that could be merged. But I think I'll rather look at some history and/or literature articles fisrt. If I do find more potential mergers, I will of course discuss them here first. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 17:17, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

== Articles like this one Reflect Poorly on Conservapedia ==

I completely sympathize with using science to back up the idea of a young Earth, but much of what is posted here is, from any geologists standpoint, silly. I could have answered any of these problems after only my first course or two at university. I work as a research scientist at NASA and I have two degrees in geology and planetary science, and will be going back to school in the fall for my PhD. Prior to NASA I was a researcher at the SETI Institute. Although my main focus the surface of Mars (I am one of the geologists on the Mars Exploration Rover [Spirit and Opportunity] team), I have also spent years studying the Earth, so I know a little bit of what I am talking about.

I appreciate the concept of Conservapedia, as it is indeed true that the majority of Wikipedia users are indeed on the more liberal side of the fence. However, for Conservapedia to be respected as a true source of learning, it is important that it get its facts straight.

My main worry in articles such as this one (and the relativity and evolution ones) is that they really mislead students in what scientists actually know and understand. From what I can tell, many of the members on CP are students. If one of these students were to become enrolled in ANY accredited geology program, they would be in for quite a shock.

I just want to be clear, my aim here is not to disprove the idea of a young Earth as described in Genesis. My goal is to alert the reader that these “counterexamples” have mostly been solved (some were answered decades ago). Communication between scientists and the general public is often poor, and the result is people not being aware of the great discoveries that bright minds are making. I have taken the time to critique the “Counterexamples to an Old Earth” page. I am very tempted to attempt to critique the “Counterexamples to Evolution” and “Counterexamples to Relativity” pages, but as a geologist those fields are not my expertise, and I would not want to elaborate on a subject which I do not fully understand.

Virtually everything I am elaborating on here comes from dozens of courses and experience I have in this field, and as a result I used very few citations. I (along with any other geologist I know) could have answered at least 90% these counterexamples after their first year of university courses in the Earth sciences. If anyone has any questions about specific points I make I would be more than happy to look up and direct you to the relevant literature.

So here we go…

First of all, it does not take only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. “Old Earth” is not written down as doctrination as if it were a religious text (this is also true for evolution and relativity). The ideas that make up the old earth “theory” have changed drastically over time, even over the past few decades. For example, plate tectonics was not discovered until the 1970s, yet today form the main basis for how we understand how the way the Earth has evolved. The same goes with the significant role impacts have in changing global processes.

The beauty of science is that nothing is ever 100% true. Just because one portion of a theory fails doesn’t make the entire thing false. It just means that there is far more work to do in the field, meaning students still have plenty of opportunities when they finish university.

Now onto the “counterexamples”:

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

Geology

1. The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them[6].

These arches have not existed since the Earth’s creation. They have been forming over billions of years, and some collapsed while other haven’t.

2. An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches[7] with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.

See above.

3. The massive Great Lakes and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume.

There are no major lakes near the equator (other than Lake Victoria, if that meets your definition of a “great lake”)(this could have to do with the fact that most major landmasses are in the Northern hemisphere). Most large lakes did not exist even tens of thousands of years ago due to the last ice age. One of the reasons these lakes are draining is due to glacial rebound (the Earth’s surface is rising since the weight from the overlying glacier has been removed. This is the same process responsible for isostacy)

4. The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood.

Simply put, no. All lakes that are saline have no outflows. They are salty for the same reason the ocean is. Salt (and other minerals) can flow in, but the only way out is through evaporation. This is why Mono Lake, the Great Salt Lake, and the Dead Sea are salty, while the Great Lakes (and most other lakes) are not. It is not a coincidence that all salty lakes have no outflows.

5. The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time.

Aquifers are replenished from precipitation. A good percentage (almost a third) of rainwater percolates into the ground and refills underground water sources)

6. The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.

Actually, underground water is a muddy slurry prior to being cleaned. Anybody who dug a hole in their backyard would not find water that looked like it came from a faucet. Also, nobody has said that specific aquifers existed for millions of years. I suppose its theoretically possible that some may have, but many others have been around for thousands or tens of thousands of years.

7. Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation every century; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation[8]

Where is the source for this? The rotation of the Earth does change, but what is the level that is deemed necessary for “destabilization.” Unless one knows what is required for destabilization, this point is useless.

8. The lack of erosion between rock layers[9][10].

If there were signs of erosion, it would not be a layer. Heres an experiment: In a clear glass, place a layer of salt, a layer of chocolate powder, a layer of flour, and a layer of Gatorade mix (or any 4 different color powders). Notice the layers. Now put them in the same glass while you simulate erosion by constantly mixing the top layer of the powder.

There are many places where you don’t see layers. This would have happened during chaotic times of deposition (or times without deposition).

9. Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water procedes through the water cycle it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.

No. The water that gets evaporated out of the ocean is very close to pure water (other than trace elements with which it interacts with in the atmosphere). Therefore freshwater reserves are constantly re-supplied by a fresh clean source: precipitation. Also, most “contamination” in ocean water is due to human pollution, and this has only been significant for the past several hundred years.

10. Paraconformity and unconformity such as that seen at the Grand Canyon disprove the uniformitarian view of earth history.

No geologist believes in a 100% uniformitarian view of earth history, just as no geologist believes that everything happens catastrophically. Overall, things go slow and take time, but there are catastrophic events that disrupt this (i.e.: your Grand Canyon “examples”, major impacts like the one htat killed that dinosaurs, volcanic eruptions)

11. All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,[11] and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

If one is going to acknowledge that isotope data can be used to reliably date things, then they must use it in its entirety. You cant pick and choose when isotope dating is valid and when it is not. There is plenty of isotope data that suggests that the Earth is billions of years old, so why is isotope data acceptable when it argues for a young Earth but not for an old one?

12. The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago![Citation Needed]

I do not know much about strontium samples in water, but I would like to see the source for this data. See the previous response regarding isotope ages. In addition, many minerals that enter the ocean are recycled through seafloor movement and subduction. The seafloor moves away from underwater volcanic chains and into trenches, where it is recycled into the Earth’s mantle.

13. The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.[Citation Needed]

No. The half-life of Uranium 238 is 4.47 billion years. Some elements take even longer to decay. In addition, much of this heat stays in the Earth due to the convection in the outer core and within the lower mantle.

Also, a good amount of the initial heat within the Earth came from the Earth’s accretion (i.e. many separate impacts that eventually formed the Earth). Even before radiation was understood, scientists such as Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the Earth to be about 100 million years with this method. He was obviously wrong, because radiation had not yet been discovered and he could not incorporate radioactive heating into his calculations.

Most of these geology counterexamples are just arguing for a short timespan of individual features (lakes, archs, etc). This is akin to an elderly man getting a pimple, and one declaring, “well the pimple is only a week old, so the man must be only a week old as well!” A tad bit ludicrous, don’t you think?

Biology

All of these are more so counter-examples to evolution rather than an old Earth. I would debate that page as well, but as a geologist I will stick to the things on which I consider myself to understand thoroughly.

1. The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[12] music, personal letters,[13] quality of political debates,[14] the quality of news articles,[15] or any other measure.

Nobody would disagree that the average human today is far more intelligent than one living in the Dark Ages.

If this was true, it is completely irrelevant to the age of the Earth. Humans have been around for less than .05% of the age of the Earth. As fantastic as we like to think we are, humans are pretty insignificant to the overall history of the planet.

2. The age of onset of sexual maturity is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.[16]

Once again, this is absolutely irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

3. The high observed rate of extinctions of species[17] and harmful genetic mutations suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.

The high rate of species extinction is mostly due to humans killing them off.

4. The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying (CNN's Anderson Cooper began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);[18] many celebrities (such as American Idol winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)[18] and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)[19] increasingly experience premature graying or balding.

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth. Actually, this kind of seems irrelevant to age og the human race as well. Gray hair could be due to a number of environmental factors, or the fact that humans are much less physically active than we used to be.

5. The age of onset of cancer is markedly decreasing,[20] suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

6. 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 fossils that have been dated to be hundreds of millions of years old. There are also tree rings which have been dated to be 11,000 years old.

7. The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.

Dogs were tamed by humans from wolves, in a similar way we tamed cattle, sheep, and pigs. This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

8. Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[21]

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

9. Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.

Many things died during mass extinction events, but life still continues.

All of this about evolution is completely irrelevant to the Earth’s age. When one talks about the Earth, they are talking about the rock we stand on and what lies beneath, not the plants and animals on the surface. Most geologists couldn’t care less about living organisms, usually they just get in the way when we are trying to get a good view of a rock outcrop.

So there you go. I apologize for using the matter-of-fact tone of voice throughout this. I am used to writing scientific papers where one writes the facts and refutes what they are attempting to disprove without concern for what the reader may be feeling.

Again, I am not trying to disprove Genesis. I just want to help the students using this website to have a better idea of what us geologists think we know about the Earth.

On another note (to all sysops), I am very aware that this very lengthy entry puts me in a major violation of the 90/10 rule. I just became active on CP, and will be adding actual entries to the encyclopedia as I have the time to contribute.[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:29, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuttal ==

Rebuttal is indented below:
::My clarifications do your rebuttals are double indented -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

:The lunar landing disproved the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth, or collided with it: the composition of Moon lacks the iron prevalent on the Earth. In addition, the orbit has to be explained. Extrapolate back from current observations, and the Moon was too close too quickly.

::Actually, I'm glad you brought that up, I forgot to mention it. The lack of iron is a great piece of evidence for a collision-caused formation! Its believed that most of the iron on the Earth (the huge majority of it) is at our planet's core. The proposed impact would have stripped the Earth's iron-poor mantle but left the core intact. Furthermore, the massive amount of energy deposited would have left the moon as a molten sphere, wherein most of the iron would sink, as it is among the heaviest common elements.

::Im not really sure where you came up with that the lunar landing disproved this theory, when in fact it actually provided a lot of evidence for it. The moon and Earth were found to have near identical isotope signatures, whereas nearly every other body in the solar system (Mars, Vesta, the Centaurs, etc) have very different compositions.

::Extrapolating from current observations is easy, and it provides further evidence for an old Earth. The Moon is receding from the Earth at about 3.8cm/year. (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html). The Earth Moon average distance is ~385000km. Simply divide one into the other and you get a time of ~10billion years. Which is within the same order of magnitude as the time of Earth/solar system formation. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

:In other words, it's a counterexample but maybe there is some unobserved material that might explain it. Believe what you like, but that's not empirical science.

::I'll admit, I know very close to nothing about "dark matter" and "dark energy." Like i said, Im a geologist, not an astrophysicist. From what I understand, nobody really understands what either of these things are. I definitely agree with you that there is most definitely no empirical evidence (that Im aware of, at least). BUT, I don't see where the evidence is that spiral galaxies are young. It seems like quite an extraordinary claim to say that ALL spiral galaxies appear young (I dont even know what is meant by young, does that mean thousands, millions, or billions of years old?), and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

:"If our solar system were unstable" AND IF VERY OLD, THEN "we wouldn't be here." Precisely.

::I don't understand your point. Just because something has a possibility of becoming unstable does not mean that it has to happen. Given that there are at least 10^22 stars in the universe (100 billion stars per galaxy times 150 billion galaxies, both of which are very conservative numbers), there could have been millions of solar systems just like ours but became unstable and failed. Ours just so happens to be one that turned out fine. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be here right now debating its origins. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

:No, the "billions and billions" type of argument doesn't help. But that fallacious argument permeates much of the old earth "logic".

::Why not? You failed to provide a reason. It does permeate much of the old Earth "logic", because the Universe is a very, very, very, big place, with billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, many of which have planets. We are one of many (see above) solar systems and locations where life may exist. I think that this is the root problem that many young-Earther-ers have with the concept of an old Earth. The number of possible locations for life in the universe is huge. We (as in organisms on Earth) just so happened to make it through near impossible odds to continue to survive today. Statistically speaking, life likely does exist somewhere else in the universe (and who knows, maybe beings there are having a debate similar to ours right now!!). Even the Vatican agrees (http://spacefellowship.com/news/art15561/vatican-holds-conference-on-extraterrestrial-life.html) -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

:Did you research this issue with an open mind, or is your mind already made up? You might try taking the quiz at [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].

::Frankly, it seems that whoever wrote this list in the first place had their mind made up. The few citations that do exist in the article link to scientific literature that does not even support the "counterexamples" raised. But yes, I just took the quiz and posted my answers on my page. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

:I may get to your other points later, if I have time. I suggest you focus on your very best points for discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::I am happy to discuss everything I wrote, although I am better versed in things geology rather than biology or astrophysics. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::If anybody has major doubts about the points I raised, I'd really suggest taking an introductory geology class at your local community college. Even if it at all related to your career field, it can be really interesting stuff and is extremely useful when deciphering the BS we hear from our politicians every day (especially on issues related to oil reserves, global warming, and so forth).

::Andy, I know that I am not going to change your mind on the subject of an old Earth (perhaps you and I should both take the open mind quiz). My worry is that students may come to CP as a resource, and in viewing a page such as this would be very misled on what scientists actually know about the planet we live on. It is one thing to say that there are many unanswered questions in the geologic sciences, it is another to say that the opinions of over 99% of geologists say is wrong. Keep in mind, these are the very geologists who we trust to mine our metals, drill our oil, and find us fresh water to drink. [[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:26, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== suggestions about two counterexamples ==
I have some suggestions to improve two of these counterexamples. First, I'm not quite sure I understand why "a stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades" implies a young earth. Some clarification would be helpful. Secondly, I'm also not sure why an increase in premature graying implies a young earth. Additionally, the article only cites a couple of famous people who have grayed prematurely to prove this point. Is there any data to support this? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 23:52, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

: Additional evidence is welcome on the premature graying issue, but I don't think it can be seriously doubted. Observations about people graying at younger ages are typical, and the opposite is never heard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:07, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

: As to your other point, it's a matter of seeing a trend stop, which suggests a young rather than old earth. If a river dries up one spring, then it suggests the river was probably not flowing there for thousands of years, but was more likely the result of a rainy winter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:09, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Hello Mr. Schlafly, thank you for responding to my concerns. I still don't see how a trend stopping really implies anything about the age of the earth. The last two popes have not been Italian, and I don't see how that would say anything about the age of the earth. The decline in scientific advances could be due to any number of causes. Perhaps there has been a shift in focus towards making consumer goods within the currently available technologies. Perhaps investment in research has declined. Those are just two possible reasons. If it is true that people are graying earlier, it could be due to increased stress levels. These phenomena have plenty of possible interpretations. I don't see how trends stopping is inconsistent with an Old Earth. Could you perhaps clarify further? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 00:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

:You make valid points. Would you like to remove it based on your arguments? Feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:11, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion re: extinction rate ==

The extinction rate is far too high to be consistent with an Old Earth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point was that the values given for current extinction rates are not 'observed' rates. They are based on a few observed extinctions and extrapolated enormously based upon estimates as to the total number of species on the planet (most estimates suggest only a minority are currently known to science). Secondly, it would only be inconsistent if the extinction rate were to have remained constant throughout history relative to the rate of speciation. All the evidence points to a highly variable rate of extinction, with several periods of mass extinctions interspersed with long periods of relatively low extinction. The whole reason so much has been written recently on extinction is that the current estimates are unusually high, with the blame being placed upon human activities, particularly in terms of habitat loss. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:14, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

::In fact, looking over most of these counterexamples, they tend to be built upon incorrect assumptions (many assume that processes can only have occurred at a constant rate throughout history, when evidence suggests otherwise), or they are based upon dubious and unsupported claims (the one about people getting grey hair at an earlier age is based solely upon a handful of well-known examples with no scientific study of widespread trends at all. This entire article needs to be drastically re-worked. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:27, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade ==

How is this a ''Counterexampl to an Old Earth''? Does standard geology imply that rivers may not dry out over time? The opposite seems to be true: The face of the Earth is constantly under reconstruction...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:09, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

: The drying of a big river suggests a lack of very long term stability. It suggests the river has not been here for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:20, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

::It does no such thing. The discharge of rivers varies across all time-scales. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 16:42, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Inferences about a lack of equilibrium (i.e., lack of very long term stability) can be drawn from the drying of a major river like the Colorado River.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:52, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Even if it were 'unstable' in the 'long-term' (both highly ambiguous and undefined terms I might add), a lack of stability is not equal to non-existence. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 10:14, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

== It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. ==

Out of curiosity, how many counterexamples would it take to disprove a Young Earth?

:The same logic would apply. Do you know of any counterexamples that don't rely on circular logic or implausible assumptions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-06-02T20:42:04Z

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive 1|Archive 1]].'''''

----


I'd like to take out the phrase "asserted by atheists" from one of the Astronomy counterexamples, because it is not just atheists who believe in an [[Old Earth]] but also [[Old Earth Creationists]]. Any objections? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:37, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

== Freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young. ==

I'd like to have this point removed: The [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Countering_the_counter_examples|previous discussion]] has shown that it doesn't have any merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

As no one added to the previous discussion, I removed the point. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==

That's as bad as the example of the lakes: it reminds me of stating: ''he cannot be old, all his pimples are recent''. And the given references don't mention any ''extrapolation''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:03, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Great Lakes ==

''The massive [[Great Lakes]] are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago''

That would be only a counterexample, if there were any geologist who thought them to be millions of years old. But it seems to be scientific consensus that these lakes were created during the last great ice age ca. 10,000 years ago. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:07, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Salt Water Lakes ==

''The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]]''

No, it doesn't. It just suggests that [[endorheic]] lakes exist - lakes without an outflow to rivers or the ocean. If such a sea has an inflow, any dissolved material (like salts) will accumulate, while the water just evaporates.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:12, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reply to above 4 comments ==

The 4 comments above are not substantive. In each case, the evidence is that a basic attribute of Earth ''is'' young, and nothing above supports the denial of this fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:No. But they are all counterarguments to the concreteness of your examples. The comments above are all traditionally accepted and easily verifiable scientific theories that offer a more plausible and widely accepted version of what happened than the case you present. Take for example, your point regarding inland saltwater lakes. You make the claim that they can ONLY exist with the aid of a global flood. This is CATEGORICALLY untrue, and demonstrates a dangerous predisposition to jump to conclusions without scientific fact. As mentioned above. The existence of said lakes is attributed to a chemical tendency known as distillation. Water is volatile and salt is not, therefore water evaporates out of the lake until the concentration of salt and other solids is extremely high. You can duplicate this experiment at home by taking a large jug of tap water and allowing it to sit in a hot, bright, dry room for a few weeks. When you return, the tap water will have an extremely high salinity, no ocean water needed.

:Conversely, the claim about a global flood has numerous holes in it. For one, there is no uniform layer of sediment that exists evenly in global geological strata. Such a layer would be inevitable if the world really was entirely submerged for any appreciable period of time. Secondly, and more importantly, there isn't enough water to fill the oceans AND cover the land. A global flood would require that there had once been a lot of water that is no longer present on earth, and this simply can't happen.

:I'm sorry to say, Andy, but YOUR arguments are not substantive.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:02, 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== What's a counterexample? ==

Maybe we have to start with the question above. I think it is reasonable to expect a ''counterexample'' to have some basic properties:

# it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.
# it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a ''Young Earth'' and finally:
# the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.

What are the theories saying? Here are two working definitions...

'''Old Earth''': Since the 18th century, scientist are convinced that the surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time. So, if there is a somewhat widespread geological feature, we expect that we can observe it in all stages of development.

'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped as we find it now by the Great Flood.

So, how do the examples fit in?

: Frank, the style of your remarks reflect a lack of an open mind towards this issue. You state, "Since the 18th century, scientist[s] are convinced ... over long periods of time." This is an historical distortion, and unhelpful to an open-minded discussion even if were true.

: I welcome open-minded discussions, but closed-minded discussions are often a waste of time. So please show some signs of an open mind about this first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

::I'm all for an open-minded discussion, too, and I'm sorry if my previous comment didn't convey this. So, let's drop the historical aspect, and just say:
::*'''Old Earth''': The surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time, and the rate of this change is roughly constant.
::*'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped by the Great Flood a couple of thousands years ago.

::But I hope you can agree with the basic properties (points 1-3 above) a ''counterexample to an Old Earth'' should have?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:46, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Frank, are you trying to refute any of the counterexamples? (In which case please provide some actual evidence) Your closed-minded insistence on causing argument seems pointless. [[User:ArnoldR|ArnoldR]] 08:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them ===
''Fragile natural arches'' exist, as there are always formed new ones. Old natural arches collapse, but [http://www.archmillennium.net/Baby_Arch.htm others] may [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kcb60/level2/lith61.html replace] them. What if there were no natural arches? I don't think that anybody had thought of them then.

=== The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ===
No geologists thinks that these lakes are millions of years old: they were created during the last ice age. Lakes are constantly created (e.g., when rivers change there bed), and happen to perish over time ([[Messel pit]]). Some are older than others ([[Baikal sea]]). The absence of new lakes would be quite puzzling for geologists! And Earth isn't as young as the youngest lake, but much older than the oldest one... (by FrankC)

: The "ice age theory" was a patch to try to explain away the counterexample. The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::It quite a leap to get from ''Great Lakes were created during the last ice age'' to ''all lakes were created during the last ice age''! There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the [[Great Flood]], though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.
::BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::: Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample.

::: As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here:

::::1. it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility.

::::2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally:

:::::No, this is not required, but illustrates a basic flaw in Old-Earth-thinking. Do you think mathematicians accept the validity of a hypothesis as long as no competing hypothesis has been proven? Of course not.

::::3. the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::''implausible ice age theory''? What's implausible about that? It just doesn't fit your YEC preconceptions.
::::::# Yes, I include the requirement of plausibility. What's the point of implausible counterexamples?
::::::# Is there a third theory I haven't heard of? If the Earth isn't young, it is old.
::::::# ''This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates''. No, I'm afraid, that' just obvious common sense.
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:55, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Frank, if you're not going to address my substantive points, then please don't respond. I make a direct analogy to mathematical hypotheses and you ignored it. Do you really think a mathematical hypothesis must be true if there is no proof for the converse?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:16, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::::I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the substantive points, so I try to make myself clearer by using the language of logic. So, let's '''C''' be a counterexample to the Old Earth Theory ('''OET'''). If '''C''' is true, than '''OET''' should be false, that's the first point:
::::::::'''1: ''' '''C ⇒ ~OET'''. If '''C''' is a good counterexample, than this equation should be obvious for everyone.
::::::::I thought the Young Earth Theory ('''YET''') and the Old Earth Theory to be complementary, so ''' YET = ~OET'''. Therefore obviously
::::::::'''2: ''' '''C ⇒ YET'''
::::::::And from ''1'', one gets
::::::::'''3: ''' ''' OET ⇒ ~C'''
::::::::I hope that this straightforward formulation is less confusing than my verbose ''the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. '' I formulated it this way, as all this isn't as ''exact'' as one would wish for: what's an obvious relation for one, needs quite an elaborate explanation for another.

::::::::But now for ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ''. As I said before, OET don't claim that these lakes existed millions of years ago, but are quite recent. You then said : '' The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.'' So, what's your ''counterexample'' now? Do you claim that the OET implies that all lakes are of the same age or were created in the same way? It seems to me that you are saying: ''As there are lakes near the Equator, the Great Lakes are millions of years old - according to OET''. But that's just a [[strawman]], and shouldn't be included in the list.
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood ===
As said earlier, saltwater lakes are explained easily as being [[endorheic]]. If there were no saltwater seas, then the endorheic basins would have to be very unstable, preventing bodies of water to become older than a couple of hundred years. This would imply quite a geologic activity, which we don't observe. But how do these inland saltwater lakes fit within the theory of a ''Young Earth''? Do you imply that the Earth was inundated by a salty ocean for forty days and nights? How could anything survive - and multiply - on this salty ground when the water receded? To explain these lakes with a global flood poses quite a few problems.
So, this ''counterexample'' is especially unconvincing, as it fails all three basic properties...

=== An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age ===
Has anyone done this extrapolation? Without it, the point is moot.

At the moment, the article impresses with the quantity of examples. But the obvious weakness of some examples distracts from other examples which may have some merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lakes again ==

*It was repeatedly explained why the ''Great Lakes'' are no countexample to an Old Earth.
*Aschlafly concluded: ''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample."''
*Aschlafly, could you reformulate the ''counterexample'' in question? Thanks.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:49, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: There are large freshwater lakes near the Equator. Do you think an "Ice Age" formed them also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::To quote myself: ''There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the Great Flood, though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.'' [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:15, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You may quote yourself, but your answer was less than direct. You seem to admit that that the Ice Age did NOT form the large freshwater lakes near the Equator. But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also. That defies explanation consistent with an Old Earth theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Pfft, in the 70's [[Liberal|liberals]] were saying that the earth was cooling. Now, its supposedly warming. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their tune about the "Ice Age" in 40 years.

''But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also.''

I'm afraid that your confidence is misplaced - the examinations and tests of geologists lead to different results. Let's have a closer look - what lakes are we talking about? Near to the equator - say in the strip between 5° North and 5° South - the number of lakes of considerable size isn't big:
*[[South America]]: none
*[[Indonesia]]: '''Lake Toba''' on [[Sumatra]], '''Lake Tempe''' and '''Lake Poso''' on [[Sulawesi]]. Lake Toba is the largest volcanic lake in the world, resulting from an eruption 69,000 - 78,000 years ago. So, it's older (according to the test of geologists) than the last [[Ice Age]], but fairly young on a geological scale. Lake Tempe is a flood plain of an average depth of 5m, so it's quite volatile in geological standards. Lake Poso is a tectonic lake and regarded as ancient (1 - 2 million years).
*[[Africa]]: Here you find the [[African Great Lakes]], in the area of our interest especially, the [[Lake Victoria]], [[Lake Tanganyika]], [[Lake Turkana]], [[Lake Albert]], [[Lake Kivu]], and [[Lake Edward]]. These are located in the [[Great Rift Valley]], which is - according to geologists - a continental rift zone. Though you may call ''Lake Victoria'' young - as it's only 500,000 old and dried out a couple of times, the other lakes are estimated to be roughly 4 million years old.

All of these lakes are older than the American [[Great Lakes]]. So, I repeat my request: please, remove ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '' from the list of counterexamples:
* it is misleading, as ''atheistic geologists'' don't claim that these lakes ''have existed millions of years ago''
* your alternate approach (''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample'') doesn't work neither, as there are ancient (≈ 4 million years) freshwater lakes.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:47, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.

: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::''None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.''
::On the contrary, there is little doubt under geologists that all of the lakes above are not young (with the possible exception of Lake Tempe) . Every textbook on geology will tell you that the oldes of Great African Lakes were formed ≈ 4 mya ago, with Lake Victoria being the youngest of the lot<ref>John Reader, ''Africa'', National Geographic 9/2001</ref>. The [http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0601-09= Toba event] took place ≈ 70,000 years ago.
::''Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.''
::This doesn't make sense. Carbon dating is only used on relatively young (holecenic) freshwater sources. (More in a separate section)
::''I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory?''
::I thought that I've answered this question, too, but I'll elaborate:
::*no, arguing against one theory doesn't defend the other. But both theories can't be true simultaneously - though both could be false. OTOH, there aren't that many concurring theories out there. And entries like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=784643&oldid=784484 this] of your fellow sysop ''Conservative'' show that on this page, Old Earth Theory and Young Earth Theory are put against each other.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? Of course not. The Old Earth theory is disproved by the numerous counterexamples, and creationism is irrelevant to that disproof or a reasoned discussion of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==

What's implausible about it? The article [[Ice Age]] doesn't say anything about plausibility. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:51, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last [[Ice Age]] nor for the [[Great Flood]].

::The creation of the Great Lakes however can be studied by geologists who examined the history of this area. Their surveys paint an interesting picture of the formation of the Great Lakes ([http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/damery1/gl_form.html here] an introduction).

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, you repeatedly reason in an "either-or" manner, as though the only two possibilities are the [[Old Earth]] and your view of [[creationism]]. That's not logical or scientific. Both could be wrong. No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.

::: If the Ice Age theory provided a plausible explanation for the Great Lakes and other observed formations (such as the Mississippi bluffs), then a computer simulation would be easy to build. But it hasn't been done, which suggests that the Ice Age theory is implausible in explaining all that is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::*both could be false, both aren't simulated globally
:::*are you ''confident'' that such a simulation could be easily build? The formation of the Great Lakes has been simulatied - that's something I'm confident of.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:24, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::(Could you please answer to my substantive edits in the previous section? Thanks. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:25, 2 June 2010 (EDT))

:::: Computer simulations would be easy to make. scientists clearly have access to computers. If they're so confident of their "theories" why not make an accurate simulation and add that as proof? I think they know there irratioinal beliefs won't help up to scruteny. FrankC, just have an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:36, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Actually, this PDF contains the results of just such a survey: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V72-48F04CM-26&_user=10&_coverDate=08/20/1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1478705466&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4e83cc89688e873bc3fa1889ab02a7b4&searchtype=a

:::::Andy, and ReligiousRight, I would suggest you both take your own advice on open-mindedness and try to read it.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

:::::And, just as a side note: As a programmer, I can assure you that simulating systems that involve literally millions of variables is about as easy as as it sounds.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages ==

# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

The source doesn't corroborate the claim. The authors of the study seem to be well aware of the limits of [[carbon dating]], and don't try to apply it to pre-Holecene water. And of course, a reservoir can be older than the water it holds (you can't judge the age of the glass by the vintage of the wine!).

Conservapedia's article on [[carbon dating]] highlights the fact that it can't be used to determine ages older than 50,000 years.

nota bene: the source shouldn't be used for ''lakes'' at all: it mentions lakes only in a passing reference to the founder of the science of dating water, Franke and Deevey.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:08, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

<references/>

:"14C dating of the DIC in palaeowater is indispensable for paleohydrological and palaeoclimatologi-
cal reconstructions and for applied hydrogeological studies. Numerical mass-transport modeling
profits from the improvement of hydrogeological conceptions and the revision of boundary condi-
tions. In the case of non-steady-state recharge conditions, maximum and minimum recharge rates in
the past may be estimated from 14C dates of DIC via numerical modeling.

:14C dates measured from DIC enable the determination of regional geohydraulic parameters and
allow water balances to be checked. In most applications, complementary environmental isotope
analyses of hydrogen and oxygen together with general hydrochemical measurements are recom-
mended to facilitate a comprehensive and thorough interpretation of the 14C dates (Cark and Fritz
1997).

:A primary task towards a significant improvement in the applied 14C dating of groundwater remains
with the development of procedures that will enable 14C activities measured from DIC to be confi-
dently included in the calibration of finite-element and compartmental modeling exercises."

:This is a quote from the conclusion of the paper Andy cited to make his point about C-14 testing. In short, the conclusion says that it is necessary to further develop C-14 testing for dissolved carbons so as to improve our understanding of paleohydrology. The paper never makes concrete assertions about the "age" of the water, just suggestions for a method of testing the organic mater in water to help determine the age of isolated aquifers (NOT LAKES, which would have inconsistent levels due to evaporation and run-off.

:Andy, please start showing more discretion with the scope of your claims, and present better evidence. Bad arguments are a detraction from the integrity of this site, and your posts only end up hurting our argument.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:43 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Answer to Aschlafy ==

You asked: ''You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? ''

I don't think that the reason for the Old Earth theory to be true is that Young Earth creationism is false. But even if I followed the insinuated reasoning above, that shouldn't influence the topic of our discussion: ''counterexamples to an Old Earth''. On this talkpage, I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these counterexamples.

Just for an analogy. Often, you hear criticism of the infallibility of the Bible phrased as questions like ''Whom did Cain marry?'' ''What's the value of π according to 1 Kings 7:23?''. These questions can be phrased as ''counterexamples to Biblical inerrancy'':

*Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.

*The circumference and the diameter of a bronze vessel are given as 30 units and 10 units. Therefore, the Bible claims that π equals 3.

Are these valid ''counterexamples''? Would someone using these examples in a discussion impress his dialog partners? No , of course not! The first one makes a claim (''there were no other people'' - Adam and Eve had other children!) not made in the Bible - therefore erecting a straw-man, the second one talks about the features of a special object: maybe there was a brim? And ''3''' ''is'' an approximation for π.... a These so-called ''counterexamples'' are easily explained within the Biblical framework, and anyone using them shows just his ignorance in these matters. Therefore, repeating them and ignoring the given explanation is just a Mantric exercise for those who chose not to face reality: I hope that we can agree that these ''counterexamples'' are weak, and their weakness can be seen be everyone - believing in Biblical inerrancy or not.

I'm afraid that the same must be said about some of the ''counterexamples to an Old Earth'': the most impressive about them is their number. But the individual examples tend to be quite weak. What happens to a pupil using them in a discussion with his fellow students - or his teacher? He will be faced with further questions and explanations. For instance, look at:

*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago

Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.

To prevent this, you should perhaps elaborate the examples, and give refutations for the explanations of geologists.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:What if we assume that geologists really do think that the Great Lakes were made by icebergs 10,000 years ago instead of 10,000,000? There is still no proof of this, not even a computer model (which I assure you could be easily done). Your argument is much ado about nothing. [[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 14:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::See my post responding to this topic earlier. The model is there in the link. Other proof includes any of the numerous geological surveys that can be found by googling the topic in google scholar. Also, "much ado about nothing" is taken from Shakespearian slang for sex crazed. I find the assertion that Frank is a sex addict just because you disagree with him to be insulting.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:49 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Observations on some deceitful points in this article ==

Hi. I'm new here after finding this site from a google search on abortion. I also came across this, um, peculiar article. I looked at some of the facts presented and it looks deliberately misleading:

*For example, because freshwater lakes appear to be "young" (subjective term but we'll go with it) has no indication on the age of the earth.

*The earth's magnetic field is indeed declining, but when I go to that NASA site, in the ''same, exact'' paragraph, it says:

{{Cquote|There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million years according to geological evidence. The time between reversals seems to be growing longer, and is currently about 300,000 years or so. The last one of these happened about 770,000 years ago (0.77 on the graph). We are currently living during a period that has been called the Brunhes Magnetic Chron when the South Magnetic Pole is in the Northern Hemisphere. During the previous Matumaya Magnetic Chron, the North Magnetic Pole was in the Northern Hemisphere! Note that, from the polarity figure, at a time 0.94 million years ago (940,000 years ago) the magnetic field reverse itself by going nearly to 'zero' but then after a few thousand years it recovered and began to increase in strength. During the next 150,000 years it rose to a maximum strength and then began to decline. Notice, also, how fast the magnetic field recovers after it reaches 'zero', in some cases much less than 10,000 years.}}

.. but then the article has:

''Presently, Earth's magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. ... Not comparable to an old earth''

Kind of deceptive and misleading, if not blatantly lying, no?

Thanks for your feedback, [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 15:45, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

===Another observation===
Religulous Right [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=786079&oldid=786069 undid] an edit of mine, so I'll explain why I removed it. First off, it's highly speculative and opinionated to an individual:
*Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.
*Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth. Thanks [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:21, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
: I realize you're new here. However, you can't just walk into somebody's living room and strart deleting their work because you don't approve of it. Either you make your case here or contribute to the project with material before you start deleting stuff. If all new useres starting deleting everything they didn't like we would end up with no material. Also, if you didn't notice, there were four footnotes in the section you deleted. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:47, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::I made my case above, did you not read it? [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:50, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Hopefully I can address a few of your concerns here, Douglas.
:::*''Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.'' The only data I could find on this statement is [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/26/sat here], which does show a slow and steady decline within the past five years of critical reading skills, while mathematics has stayed steady the past three years. The average high school student's SAT score, given the data, has dropped, though I concede that there is perhaps not enough data to make a definitive statement on the matter.
:::*''Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth.'' Style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence, but linguistics and grammar do. The spoken word has become—for lack of a better word (heh)—lazy due to either lost interest in proper spoken word or lack of mental ability to comprehend and utilize it. I believe that one's speech capabilities are intertwined with how intelligent he is.
:::In the future, please wait for someone to address your points before making changes to a sensitive article. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:05, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Yes. However, I'm saying make your case BEFORE you start deleting points that could possibly be great insights. We don't want to be engaging in [[Liberal censorship]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for the aid, RR, but this user has been politely removed from the site. He may return in three days. Until then, RR, may I suggest you do something more productive than bicker with liberals on talk pages? I understand they are infuriating, but trust me, us admins have got it under control. Nothing gets by us. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 20:03, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
I didn't realize he was a liberal. I thought he just may have been a deluded conservative. Even they make me very angry! But you're right. I'll do something more productive. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 20:09, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::''Administrators'', RR, will offer instruction to other users, not other editors. Is that clear? I am disturbed by the continual similarities in your observations and those of past users we eventually found not to be of good intentions. Jacob's suggestion for you if far more polite than any I would offer at this moment, as I would have blocked you both for two days. While your contributions are appreciated the same as anyone else editing here, refrain from emulating other editors style, especially administrators, and completely refrain from bombast and unsupported statements, RR. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:38, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

== Sources ==

The sources for some of the ''counterexamples'' highlight their weaknesses:
* [http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."] is a broken link. I couldn't find the actual article. When stating sources, it is helpful (and add to their credibility) if basic information is given, like the date of the publishing, the name of the author, etc.
* [http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"] this source doesn't say anything about the age of the galaxy
* http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0 is a hint to the review from some Portuguese guy whoe writes about the book ''The Young Earth''. I commented this one out as the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] state ''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others.''
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:38, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

*I get an error for http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 , too
The reinsertion of the link I took out is somewhat surprising. Could someone define what is to be understood by an ''authoritative work''? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:19, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:: Frank, your comments are nit-picky stuff. This is a site for the open-minded, earnest search for the truth. A galaxy spinning in a direction opposite to its tail confounds old earth theories, and that problem is not to be dismissed because a reporter didn't fully address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:22, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Where are you getting this information, Andy? You shoot down other's intuition and demand fact when people oppose you, but you refuse to offer fact, when you've been backed into a corner. That isn't fair. intuition doesn't make an argument. You need REAL sources for these assertions. It isn't nit-picky to say that the links you provide for most citations DO NOT remotely support your point. [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:54 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Newsweek ==

I couldn't find the article in ''newsweek'' - some censorship on their part? I reread the somewhat bizarre discussion in the [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Instability_of_the_Solar_System|archived talk page]] of this article, and [http://www.google.de/#hl=en&q=%22the+planetary+orbits+will+indeed+become+chaotic%2C%22+laughlin&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=b52ff5a993c4ca35 googling] for the quote ''But the chances of orbits changing with less-than-catastrophic results are greater, notes Laughlin: "the planetary orbits will indeed become chaotic," with "the time required for chaos to significantly degrade the predictability of a system [on] the order of 5 million years."'', I came up with this article on [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/459781a.html Nature]. But the conclusion of this article is somewhat the opposite of the statement made here, as it's abstract states:

''Simulations show that orbital chaos can lead to collisions between Earth and the inner planets. But Einstein's tweaks to Newton's theory of gravity render these ruinous outcomes unlikely in the next few billion years.''

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

: Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:27, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::The quote above wasn't from some ''reporter'', but made by Gregory Laughlin (Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California), while your counterexample seems to be based on conclusion of the reporter of Newsweek. The factual information can be found here: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] and can be summarized as: yes such collisional trajectories exist, but they are even more improbable than thought earlier. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:34, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:12, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::::You give excellent advice: ''Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased''. As I stated above, I couldn't find the piece in ''Newsweek'' anymore. You are aware that reporters of popular magazines tend to prefer a sensational headline over a more level-headed one, i.e. ''doom incoming!'' over ''scientists say incoming doom unlikely''.
::::Fortunately, the very articles the Newsweek's journalist wrote about are still available, and I linked to them in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Here, you find the factual information, summarized by Gregory Laughlin:
::::'''Their [i.e. J. Laskar's & M. Gastineau's] work shows that the orbits of the terrestrial planets -- Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars -- have a roughly 99% chance of maintaining their current, well-ordered clockwork for the roughly 5 billion years that remain before the Sun evolves into a red giant and engulfs the inner Solar System''''''
::::Getting from this to ''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' or ''The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual'' is quite surprising.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:50, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

== Receding Moon ==

''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago ''

What's ''too close''? [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html According to NASA], the current rate is 3.8 cm/year<ref>[http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994.)</ref>. If we assume that this rate is constant, than it gained over the last billion years:

'''1,000,000,000 year × 3.8cm/year = 3,800,000,000cm = 38,000,000m = 38,000km'''

That roughly 10% of the current mean orbital radius of the [[Moon]] of 378,000km!

But the [[Roche limit]] of the system Earth-Moon is 18,000km - even 5 billion years ago the moon would not have been within this critical region.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

: 10% off the mean is a huge difference, which would have many dire effects. Note that it is bigger than 10% with respect to the closest distance. Have you looked into that? Also, Old Earth believers claim the age is far older than 1 billion years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== Pattern ==

*''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago '': that is wrong, a billion years ago, there was no problem with the Moon's orbit, even at the current rate of receding.
*''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '': that is deceptive, as geologists don't claim that the Great Lakes existed millions of years ago.
*''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' That is misleading, as they probability that the solar system maintains stable is 99%.

What is to be achieved by massing up a great number of flawed statements?
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:31, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:I've addressed your first point in the section above. Your second point does not rebut the truth of the statement. The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it. Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative. The solar system is unstable, and that is undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:12, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::''The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it.'' Science isn't about the public misconceptions of a theory, but the theory itself.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:33, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

== Links ==
<references />

== Strontium Isotopes ==

The concentration of strontium isotopes in seawater is fluctuating - and the concentration at various times is well known (and tabled). ''Long-term erosion'' is not the only cause of changing concentrations (e.g, have a look [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989AREPS..17..141V here]), so the assumption of a monotonous process is overly simplistic.

For short: not a good example, neither.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:49, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

:I added a fact tag, as there doesn't seem to be a source to back up the claim made in this ''counterexample''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:08, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Speculations ==

Dear Andy,
above, you write ''Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative.'' No, it is not - as the quoted article states, the probabilities are calculated using the best current models and the best simulations. So, ''purely speculative'' doesn't fit this point at all!

OTOH, I have to read: ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that.'' '''Colliding with the Earth before that'''? Have you done any calculation? Made a simple simulation? I doubt it! In fact, a simple back-of-an-envelope calculation would have shown that the Moon was far from ''colliding'' - even making the assumption of a constant rate of recession!

I'm prone to erase this speculative (or better. factually incorrect) statement, but I don't want to be accused of ''censorship''. Therefore, I just added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-tag, giving you the possibility to back up this sentence with ''facts''.

I'll do the same for the for the entry ''An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.'', as I couldn't find such an extrapolation anywhere, especially not in the given source.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:16, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

: Frank, your comments are longwinded, but did you respond to the defect in your comparison of the distance that Moon recedes to its mean distance from the Earth? Obviously the relevant comparison is to the closest distance of the Moon to the Earth. Please respond to that relevant issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:35, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

::*Assuming a constant rate of recession, I get the following values:
:::{|
|Recession of the Moon over one billion years (assuming a constant rate)||''' 38,000km'''
|-
|Current mean orbital radius:||'''378,000km'''
|-
|Current perigee:||'''363,000km'''
|}
::So, a billion years ago, the [[Moon]] would have been 10.05% (mean orbital radius) or 10.47% (closest distance) nearer to the Earth than it is now. Yes, there are consequence of such a closer distance (e.g., more and greater tidal movements), but I doubt that simple multicellular ocean-based life-forms would bother, so this isn't that relevant, is it?
::*Now, could you address the following problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::*JacobB deleted the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags I added to the two statements above without any further comment (or indeed coming up with sources/calculations/simulations). As he obviously doesn't like when comments of a sysop are reversed, I refrain from doing so. But I do think that these was the perfect place to insert such tags, as
:::#The statements aren't obvious, as they involve estimations and calculations
:::#I did research, and couldn't find any source to back up the claims
:::#In fact, according to my own estimations, these statements are wrong
:::#I stated the reasons for inserting the tags above
:::So, please, back up the statements, or reinsert the tags (hoping that someone else comes up with an explanation), or just delete the statements.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Solar Fusion ==

''The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.''

Could someone add some numbers to this? For me, it sounds just wrong, and I couldn't find any source for it. It's something different from the [[Faint young Sun problem]], I suppose. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:02, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

:http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/sun/sun-chapter5.html

:This article explains the life of the sun so far, with some great equations that explain the rate of H and He depletion in the solar fusion reaction. As you can see, the math supports a sun of at least 4.5 billion years old, with a life span that will extend for another 5 to 10 billion years.

:No doubt, Andy will chastise me for posting this, and demand that i be more open minded (ie. believe only what he believes and disregard "liberally biased math" in favor of the more biblically friendly "no real evidence at all")

== Geothermal Activity ==

''The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.''

Why not? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Questionable Probabilities ==

''If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here (as of June 28, 2010) has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with 93% probability.''

This seems to be modeled after [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]:

''Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that), then the odds that these counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is infinitesimally small (only a 6% chance that evolution is true with 54 possible counterexamples).''

There are quite a few problems with these statements:
*Why 10% in the first case, but only 5% in the second? Is it that otherwise these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with probability of 72% - and that value isn't convincing enough?
*Where do these probabilities come from? Is there a source which utters statements of which one in ten (or one in twenty) is correct?
*To assume that all these counterexamples are '''independent''' is ''very'' problematic!
*Generally, these counterexamples don't make predictions about unknowns, so, the validity of a statement like ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that'' can be calculated at this very moment: The probability that this counterexample is correct is ''zero'' as the statement is wrong.

I won't delete these ''"calculations"'', but I'll add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags to give the authors (or others) the opportunity to state their lines of reasoning: So, why are these probabilities reasonable estimates, and why are the ''odds far higher than that'' resp. why are these ''underestimates''?

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:03, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

: The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful. It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect. A number of 50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%. Regardless, the point is clear and educational.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:04, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

::*''The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful.'' Helpful for what?
::*''It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect.'' Stating probabilities like '''6%''' or '''93%''' is a claim to be precise. Getting such precise numbers by putting together some very rough estimates (''50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%'') isn't good statistical practice.
::*''Regardless, the point is clear and educational.'' What's the educational purpose of this point: ''add percentages to your statements because that sounds scientific'' ?
::*Above, I answered to your question on perigee vs. mean radius. Could you please address my problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::Thanks, [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind. If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it. But we're not going to censor the point itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::''Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. '' No, it's a ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia''. That's why I'm not posing random questions, but I'm questioning dubious and unsourced statements. I'm not doing so frivolously, but only after checking into the statements myself. As you made these statements, you should either be able to give the necessary calculations/estimations/simulations to affirm them, or you should '''delete''' these questionable counterexamples. To paraphrase one of your comments: '''Please respond to these relevant issues''' - as you expect us to answer your questions...
::::''The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind.'' I'm sorry but I'm getting the idea that this is a scatter-shot approach where most of the projectiles are expect to miss...
::::''If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it.'' No, I've no better way of stating it, as I don't think it can be stated correctly. May I add that deleting a wrong point from an ecyclopedia isn't censorship, but just due editorial process?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:29, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: No, Frank, you're challenging a mathematical truth here. We welcome suggestions on explaining truths better. [[Censorship]] is not welcome here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::*I don't doubt the mathematical truth that 1-0.925 ~ 0.93, but I doubt that this model is applicable. That's a difference.
::::::*Above, you asked me a question. I answered it - obviously satisfactorily, as there was no follow-up question of you. Now, I asked you two questions. Could you please try to answer them?
:::::::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::::::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::::::*The counterexamples concerned by these questions aren't self-evident, and the first statement seems to be plainly wrong to me. If you fail to address these problems, if any query for additional information (i.e., the <nowiki>{{fact]]</nowiki>-tags) is removed, you give the impression that the only reason for these examples to be included in the list is that you just like them. Is this sufficient for an encyclopedia?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:59, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
* The Earth-Moon collision is not a statemente about a future fact, but a statement about a past event. ''Given the current models'' of tidal friction, and extrapolating backwards ''ceteris paribus'', the Earth-Moon ''would have'' collided (or, being as close as you wish) about 109 years ago. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:23, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
** Or, more precisely, about 2 x 109 years ago, according to "Lunar nodal tide and distance to the Moon during the Precambrian", J.C.G. Walker, K.J. Zahnle - Nature, 1986. There may be other theories (even negating this); I found that using Google Academic with "tidal friction earth moon collision". [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:36, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:: Severe problems from the moon being in close proximity to the earth would arise well before the 2 billion years you cite.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

The [[Christian apologetics|evidence for Christianity and the Bible is extremely strong]] and Bible exegesis does not support an old earth and that is why traditional Judaism and most of the early Church fathers who spoke on the issue believe in a young earth. Plus, there is [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth plenty of evidence for a young earth.] The probability for an old earth is zero. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:20, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to evidence for a young earth has some interesting examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
:: Interesting but totally unscientific I'm afraid. And illogical. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:35, 12 February 2011 (EST)

::: I wonder what your score, "Darkmind", would be on an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openmindedness test]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:11, 12 February 2011 (EST)

== Dissipation of Underground Well Water ==

I was wondering if anyone has more information or explanation about the counterexample, "The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time." This is a very intriguing counterexample, but I don't quite understand it based on my understanding of entropy (from a classical thermodynamics perspective) and I could not find any supporting sources. Also, "high concentrations of underground well water" seems either vague or imprecisely worded (does this mean high ''volumes'', or is it high concentrations within a geographic area...). Thanks. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 15:21, 15 February 2011 (EST)
:As I understand it, all things tend to disorder over time. If the atheistic belief of a billions of years old earth were true, this water would have long since lost its order and would now be in a completely random, disordered state. This is clearly not the case and once again the evolutionists are proven wrong. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 15:37, 15 February 2011 (EST)
::OK, so it seems like we could expect any matter that is billions of years old to be in a completely random, disordered state by now. Maybe this counterexample doesn't need to refer specifically to underground well water. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 16:25, 15 February 2011 (EST)

:::The example of water is particularly striking. If I see a bucket full of water in a desert, then I can infer it has not been there more than a day or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:03, 15 February 2011 (EST)

== Merging of some counterexamples? ==

First of all I would like to thank the authors for your counterexamples. I allway accepted the Old Earth Theory, without thinking too much about it. This article has certainly given me some new perspectives.
But: I think quite a few of the counterexamples could be merged together. For instance: In Astronomy: Counterexample nr. 1 and nr. 6 say basically the same thing: the moons orbit is unstable, thus it could not have existed billions of years before, since it would have collided with the earth.
The same goes for counterexamples nr. 2 and 4. The basic statement is: spiral galaxies are rather young.
Similar redundancy can be seen in the Geology section.
I think it would improve the article if there were fewer counterexamples, that state basically the same thing. But that's just my two cents.
À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:54, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

: I looked at 1 and 6, and also 2 and 4, and each make different, distinct points. One could also complain about my use of "different, distinct" in my prior sentence as being somewhat redundant too, I suppose! But those adjectives convey individual meaning also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:: Thank you for your quick response. After rereading the different examples, I agree. They are different. So "redundant" was certainly the wrong expression (since English is not my first language, such imprecisions unfortunately occur...). But the examples are still similar to each other, producing (at least for me) a feeling of déja vu. What concerns me is that said déja vus kinda downplay the great new insights this article offers. They reduce the "newness" of the presented information. That's why I would suggest that for instance examples 1 and 6 be merged to something like this:
::''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the moon being as they are today. The Moon's orbit is '''also''' becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stabilit. '''Thus further disproving the theory of an Old Earth'''''
::It's just a minor formal change although I think it would improve the reading experience. À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 16:05, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, your suggestion is a good one, although it seems to require combining two separate problems into one. But both concern the Moon, so please combine them as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::::Done. I hope it is to your liking. If I have more time I might take a look at some other examples that could be merged. But I think I'll rather look at some history and/or literature articles fisrt. If I do find more potential mergers, I will of course discuss them here first. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 17:17, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

== Articles like this one Reflect Poorly on Conservapedia ==

I completely sympathize with using science to back up the idea of a young Earth, but much of what is posted here is, from any geologists standpoint, silly. I could have answered any of these problems after only my first course or two at university. I work as a research scientist at NASA and I have two degrees in geology and planetary science, and will be going back to school in the fall for my PhD. Prior to NASA I was a researcher at the SETI Institute. Although my main focus the surface of Mars (I am one of the geologists on the Mars Exploration Rover [Spirit and Opportunity] team), I have also spent years studying the Earth, so I know a little bit of what I am talking about.

I appreciate the concept of Conservapedia, as it is indeed true that the majority of Wikipedia users are indeed on the more liberal side of the fence. However, for Conservapedia to be respected as a true source of learning, it is important that it get its facts straight.

My main worry in articles such as this one (and the relativity and evolution ones) is that they really mislead students in what scientists actually know and understand. From what I can tell, many of the members on CP are students. If one of these students were to become enrolled in ANY accredited geology program, they would be in for quite a shock.

I just want to be clear, my aim here is not to disprove the idea of a young Earth as described in Genesis. My goal is to alert the reader that these “counterexamples” have mostly been solved (some were answered decades ago). Communication between scientists and the general public is often poor, and the result is people not being aware of the great discoveries that bright minds are making. I have taken the time to critique the “Counterexamples to an Old Earth” page. I am very tempted to attempt to critique the “Counterexamples to Evolution” and “Counterexamples to Relativity” pages, but as a geologist those fields are not my expertise, and I would not want to elaborate on a subject which I do not fully understand.

Virtually everything I am elaborating on here comes from dozens of courses and experience I have in this field, and as a result I used very few citations. I (along with any other geologist I know) could have answered at least 90% these counterexamples after their first year of university courses in the Earth sciences. If anyone has any questions about specific points I make I would be more than happy to look up and direct you to the relevant literature.

So here we go…

First of all, it does not take only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. “Old Earth” is not written down as doctrination as if it were a religious text (this is also true for evolution and relativity). The ideas that make up the old earth “theory” have changed drastically over time, even over the past few decades. For example, plate tectonics was not discovered until the 1970s, yet today form the main basis for how we understand how the way the Earth has evolved. The same goes with the significant role impacts have in changing global processes.

The beauty of science is that nothing is ever 100% true. Just because one portion of a theory fails doesn’t make the entire thing false. It just means that there is far more work to do in the field, meaning students still have plenty of opportunities when they finish university.

Now onto the “counterexamples”:

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

Geology

1. The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them[6].

These arches have not existed since the Earth’s creation. They have been forming over billions of years, and some collapsed while other haven’t.

2. An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches[7] with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.

See above.

3. The massive Great Lakes and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume.

There are no major lakes near the equator (other than Lake Victoria, if that meets your definition of a “great lake”)(this could have to do with the fact that most major landmasses are in the Northern hemisphere). Most large lakes did not exist even tens of thousands of years ago due to the last ice age. One of the reasons these lakes are draining is due to glacial rebound (the Earth’s surface is rising since the weight from the overlying glacier has been removed. This is the same process responsible for isostacy)

4. The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood.

Simply put, no. All lakes that are saline have no outflows. They are salty for the same reason the ocean is. Salt (and other minerals) can flow in, but the only way out is through evaporation. This is why Mono Lake, the Great Salt Lake, and the Dead Sea are salty, while the Great Lakes (and most other lakes) are not. It is not a coincidence that all salty lakes have no outflows.

5. The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time.

Aquifers are replenished from precipitation. A good percentage (almost a third) of rainwater percolates into the ground and refills underground water sources)

6. The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.

Actually, underground water is a muddy slurry prior to being cleaned. Anybody who dug a hole in their backyard would not find water that looked like it came from a faucet. Also, nobody has said that specific aquifers existed for millions of years. I suppose its theoretically possible that some may have, but many others have been around for thousands or tens of thousands of years.

7. Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation every century; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation[8]

Where is the source for this? The rotation of the Earth does change, but what is the level that is deemed necessary for “destabilization.” Unless one knows what is required for destabilization, this point is useless.

8. The lack of erosion between rock layers[9][10].

If there were signs of erosion, it would not be a layer. Heres an experiment: In a clear glass, place a layer of salt, a layer of chocolate powder, a layer of flour, and a layer of Gatorade mix (or any 4 different color powders). Notice the layers. Now put them in the same glass while you simulate erosion by constantly mixing the top layer of the powder.

There are many places where you don’t see layers. This would have happened during chaotic times of deposition (or times without deposition).

9. Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water procedes through the water cycle it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.

No. The water that gets evaporated out of the ocean is very close to pure water (other than trace elements with which it interacts with in the atmosphere). Therefore freshwater reserves are constantly re-supplied by a fresh clean source: precipitation. Also, most “contamination” in ocean water is due to human pollution, and this has only been significant for the past several hundred years.

10. Paraconformity and unconformity such as that seen at the Grand Canyon disprove the uniformitarian view of earth history.

No geologist believes in a 100% uniformitarian view of earth history, just as no geologist believes that everything happens catastrophically. Overall, things go slow and take time, but there are catastrophic events that disrupt this (i.e.: your Grand Canyon “examples”, major impacts like the one htat killed that dinosaurs, volcanic eruptions)

11. All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,[11] and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

If one is going to acknowledge that isotope data can be used to reliably date things, then they must use it in its entirety. You cant pick and choose when isotope dating is valid and when it is not. There is plenty of isotope data that suggests that the Earth is billions of years old, so why is isotope data acceptable when it argues for a young Earth but not for an old one?

12. The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago![Citation Needed]

I do not know much about strontium samples in water, but I would like to see the source for this data. See the previous response regarding isotope ages. In addition, many minerals that enter the ocean are recycled through seafloor movement and subduction. The seafloor moves away from underwater volcanic chains and into trenches, where it is recycled into the Earth’s mantle.

13. The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.[Citation Needed]

No. The half-life of Uranium 238 is 4.47 billion years. Some elements take even longer to decay. In addition, much of this heat stays in the Earth due to the convection in the outer core and within the lower mantle.

Also, a good amount of the initial heat within the Earth came from the Earth’s accretion (i.e. many separate impacts that eventually formed the Earth). Even before radiation was understood, scientists such as Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the Earth to be about 100 million years with this method. He was obviously wrong, because radiation had not yet been discovered and he could not incorporate radioactive heating into his calculations.

Most of these geology counterexamples are just arguing for a short timespan of individual features (lakes, archs, etc). This is akin to an elderly man getting a pimple, and one declaring, “well the pimple is only a week old, so the man must be only a week old as well!” A tad bit ludicrous, don’t you think?

Biology

All of these are more so counter-examples to evolution rather than an old Earth. I would debate that page as well, but as a geologist I will stick to the things on which I consider myself to understand thoroughly.

1. The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[12] music, personal letters,[13] quality of political debates,[14] the quality of news articles,[15] or any other measure.

Nobody would disagree that the average human today is far more intelligent than one living in the Dark Ages.

If this was true, it is completely irrelevant to the age of the Earth. Humans have been around for less than .05% of the age of the Earth. As fantastic as we like to think we are, humans are pretty insignificant to the overall history of the planet.

2. The age of onset of sexual maturity is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.[16]

Once again, this is absolutely irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

3. The high observed rate of extinctions of species[17] and harmful genetic mutations suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.

The high rate of species extinction is mostly due to humans killing them off.

4. The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying (CNN's Anderson Cooper began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);[18] many celebrities (such as American Idol winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)[18] and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)[19] increasingly experience premature graying or balding.

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth. Actually, this kind of seems irrelevant to age og the human race as well. Gray hair could be due to a number of environmental factors, or the fact that humans are much less physically active than we used to be.

5. The age of onset of cancer is markedly decreasing,[20] suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

6. 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 fossils that have been dated to be hundreds of millions of years old. There are also tree rings which have been dated to be 11,000 years old.

7. The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.

Dogs were tamed by humans from wolves, in a similar way we tamed cattle, sheep, and pigs. This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

8. Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[21]

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

9. Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.

Many things died during mass extinction events, but life still continues.

All of this about evolution is completely irrelevant to the Earth’s age. When one talks about the Earth, they are talking about the rock we stand on and what lies beneath, not the plants and animals on the surface. Most geologists couldn’t care less about living organisms, usually they just get in the way when we are trying to get a good view of a rock outcrop.

So there you go. I apologize for using the matter-of-fact tone of voice throughout this. I am used to writing scientific papers where one writes the facts and refutes what they are attempting to disprove without concern for what the reader may be feeling.

Again, I am not trying to disprove Genesis. I just want to help the students using this website to have a better idea of what us geologists think we know about the Earth.

On another note (to all sysops), I am very aware that this very lengthy entry puts me in a major violation of the 90/10 rule. I just became active on CP, and will be adding actual entries to the encyclopedia as I have the time to contribute.[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:29, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuttal ==

Rebuttal is indented below:
::My clarifications do your rebuttals are double indented -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

:The lunar landing disproved the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth, or collided with it: the composition of Moon lacks the iron prevalent on the Earth. In addition, the orbit has to be explained. Extrapolate back from current observations, and the Moon was too close too quickly.

::Actually, I'm glad you brought that up, I forgot to mention it. The lack of iron is a great piece of evidence for a collision-caused formation! Its believed that most of the iron on the Earth (the huge majority of it) is at our planet's core. The proposed impact would have stripped the Earth's iron-poor mantle but left the core intact. Furthermore, the massive amount of energy deposited would have left the moon as a molten sphere, wherein most of the iron would sink, as it is among the heaviest common elements.

::Im not really sure where you came up with that the lunar landing disproved this theory, when in fact it actually provided a lot of evidence for it. The moon and Earth were found to have near identical isotope signatures, whereas nearly every other body in the solar system (Mars, Vesta, the Centaurs, etc) have very different compositions.

::Extrapolating from current observations is easy, and it provides further evidence for an old Earth. The Moon is receding from the Earth at about 3.8cm/year. (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html). The Earth Moon average distance is ~385000km. Simply divide one into the other and you get a time of ~10billion years. Which is within the same order of magnitude as the time of Earth/solar system formation. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

:In other words, it's a counterexample but maybe there is some unobserved material that might explain it. Believe what you like, but that's not empirical science.

::I'll admit, I know very close to nothing about "dark matter" and "dark energy." Like i said, Im a geologist, not an astrophysicist. From what I understand, nobody really understands what either of these things are. I definitely agree with you that there is most definitely no empirical evidence (that Im aware of, at least). BUT, I don't see where the evidence is that spiral galaxies are young. It seems like quite an extraordinary claim to say that ALL spiral galaxies appear young (I dont even know what is meant by young, does that mean thousands, millions, or billions of years old?), and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

:"If our solar system were unstable" AND IF VERY OLD, THEN "we wouldn't be here." Precisely.

::I don't understand your point. Just because something has a possibility of becoming unstable does not mean that it has to happen. Given that there are at least 10^22 stars in the universe (100 billion stars per galaxy times 150 billion galaxies, both of which are very conservative numbers), there could have been millions of solar systems just like ours but became unstable and failed. Ours just so happens to be one that turned out fine. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be here right now debating its origins. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

:No, the "billions and billions" type of argument doesn't help. But that fallacious argument permeates much of the old earth "logic".

::Why not? You failed to provide a reason. It does permeate much of the old Earth "logic", because the Universe is a very, very, very, big place, with billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, many of which have planets. We are one of many (see above) solar systems and locations where life may exist. I think that this is the root problem that many young-Earther-ers have with the concept of an old Earth. The number of possible locations for life in the universe is huge. We (as in organisms on Earth) just so happened to make it through near impossible odds to continue to survive today. Statistically speaking, life likely does exist somewhere else in the universe (and who knows, maybe beings there are having a debate similar to ours right now!!). Even the Vatican agrees (http://spacefellowship.com/news/art15561/vatican-holds-conference-on-extraterrestrial-life.html) -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

:Did you research this issue with an open mind, or is your mind already made up? You might try taking the quiz at [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].

::Frankly, it seems that whoever wrote this list in the first place had their mind made up. The few citations that do exist in the article link to scientific literature that does not even support the "counterexamples" raised. But yes, I just took the quiz and posted my answers on my page. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

:I may get to your other points later, if I have time. I suggest you focus on your very best points for discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::I am happy to discuss everything I wrote, although I am better versed in things geology rather than biology or astrophysics. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::If anybody has major doubts about the points I raised, I'd really suggest taking an introductory geology class at your local community college. Even if it at all related to your career field, it can be really interesting stuff and is extremely useful when deciphering the BS we hear from our politicians every day (especially on issues related to oil reserves, global warming, and so forth).

::Andy, I know that I am not going to change your mind on the subject of an old Earth (perhaps you and I should both take the open mind quiz). My worry is that students may come to CP as a resource, and in viewing a page such as this would be very misled on what scientists actually know about the planet we live on. It is one thing to say that there are many unanswered questions in the geologic sciences, it is another to say that the opinions of over 99% of geologists say is wrong. Keep in mind, these are the very geologists who we trust to mine our metals, drill our oil, and find us fresh water to drink. [[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:26, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== suggestions about two counterexamples ==
I have some suggestions to improve two of these counterexamples. First, I'm not quite sure I understand why "a stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades" implies a young earth. Some clarification would be helpful. Secondly, I'm also not sure why an increase in premature graying implies a young earth. Additionally, the article only cites a couple of famous people who have grayed prematurely to prove this point. Is there any data to support this? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 23:52, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

: Additional evidence is welcome on the premature graying issue, but I don't think it can be seriously doubted. Observations about people graying at younger ages are typical, and the opposite is never heard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:07, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

: As to your other point, it's a matter of seeing a trend stop, which suggests a young rather than old earth. If a river dries up one spring, then it suggests the river was probably not flowing there for thousands of years, but was more likely the result of a rainy winter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:09, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Hello Mr. Schlafly, thank you for responding to my concerns. I still don't see how a trend stopping really implies anything about the age of the earth. The last two popes have not been Italian, and I don't see how that would say anything about the age of the earth. The decline in scientific advances could be due to any number of causes. Perhaps there has been a shift in focus towards making consumer goods within the currently available technologies. Perhaps investment in research has declined. Those are just two possible reasons. If it is true that people are graying earlier, it could be due to increased stress levels. These phenomena have plenty of possible interpretations. I don't see how trends stopping is inconsistent with an Old Earth. Could you perhaps clarify further? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 00:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

:You make valid points. Would you like to remove it based on your arguments? Feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:11, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion re: extinction rate ==

The extinction rate is far too high to be consistent with an Old Earth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point was that the values given for current extinction rates are not 'observed' rates. They are based on a few observed extinctions and extrapolated enormously based upon estimates as to the total number of species on the planet (most estimates suggest only a minority are currently known to science). Secondly, it would only be inconsistent if the extinction rate were to have remained constant throughout history relative to the rate of speciation. All the evidence points to a highly variable rate of extinction, with several periods of mass extinctions interspersed with long periods of relatively low extinction. The whole reason so much has been written recently on extinction is that the current estimates are unusually high, with the blame being placed upon human activities, particularly in terms of habitat loss. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:14, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

::In fact, looking over most of these counterexamples, they tend to be built upon incorrect assumptions (many assume that processes can only have occurred at a constant rate throughout history, when evidence suggests otherwise), or they are based upon dubious and unsupported claims (the one about people getting grey hair at an earlier age is based solely upon a handful of well-known examples with no scientific study of widespread trends at all. This entire article needs to be drastically re-worked. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:27, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade ==

How is this a ''Counterexampl to an Old Earth''? Does standard geology imply that rivers may not dry out over time? The opposite seems to be true: The face of the Earth is constantly under reconstruction...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:09, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

: The drying of a big river suggests a lack of very long term stability. It suggests the river has not been here for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:20, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

::It does no such thing. The discharge of rivers varies across all time-scales. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 16:42, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. ==

Out of curiosity, how many counterexamples would it take to disprove a Young Earth?

:The same logic would apply. Do you know of any counterexamples that don't rely on circular logic or implausible assumptions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

Great Flood

2011-05-28T16:28:23Z

WilliamB1: /* Other ancient references */ a link to an annonymous internet forum posting is hardly a valid reference

{{cquote|'''Genesis 6:13''' ...The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.}}
[[Image:Schönfeld The Flood.jpg|thumb|320px|The Flood by Johann Heinrich Schönfeld.]]
The '''Great Flood''' refers to the most catastrophic [[flood]] and the most catastrophic geological event that has ever taken place in human history.

Virtually nothing historical, from writings to civilization to long-living organisms like trees, has survived from before about 3000 B.C., an approximate date given to the Great Flood.<ref>''See, e.g.'', http://www.ohtm.org/strut99.pdf</ref> Today 60% of Americans accept as truth the Biblical account of the Great Flood,<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> and most cultures record a world-destroying flood in their oral or written histories.

== Summary ==

This flood was the means of [[God]]'s judgment on mankind because of the evil in their heart and actions. God warned [[Noah]] that He was going to destroy the world with a flood, because of the wickedness of mankind. Noah was to build an [[Noah's Ark|ark]] and take his family and pairs of each [[baraminology|kind]] of air-breathing animal in it in order to be saved from the flood.

After Noah and his family and all the creatures were on board, God shut the door of the ark. The flood was brought on by the bursting open of the ''fountains of the great deep'' and the opening of ''the floodgates of the sky''. The rain lasted nearly six weeks (40 days and nights). The flood waters apparently continued to rise for 150 days, but it was just over a year before the waters had receded enough for the occupants of the ark to leave.

The ark came to rest on one of the mountains of [[Ararat]]. God used a [[rainbow]] in the clouds as a sign that he would never again destroy the world in a flood.<ref>Genesis does not say that this was the first ever rainbow.</ref>

== Flood accounts ==
[[Image:The Great Deluge - Gustave Dore.jpg|thumb|330px|''The Great Deluge'', by Gustave Doré.]]
One of the strong pieces of evidence in support of a worldwide flood are the many stories that exist amongst people groups all over the world. These stories describe a world-destroying flood, and it is highly improbable to have this type of similarity between them. Dr. [[John Morris]] wrote regarding the historicity of the biblical flood:
{{cquote|One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on [[Earth]] except for [[Noah]] and his family, has been the ubiquitous presence of flood legends in the folklore of people groups from around the world. And the stories are all so similar.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref>}}

=== Gilgamesh Epic ===
The best known of the flood accounts is, firstly, the biblical account in [[Genesis]], and secondly, the one found in the [[Gilgamesh Epic]]. Here is a summary of the Gilgamesh Epic:
:''The council of the gods decided to destroy mankind with a flood, but Utnapishtim was warned by the god who had made man, Ea, to build a boat to take all living beings. The length, width, and height were each 120 cubits (about 180 feet). It had seven stories.
:''The gods got frightened by the flood and retreated to heaven where they cowered and wept.
:''The flood lasted six days and seven nights, and was accompanied by wind and storm.
:''Utnapishtim send out a dove followed by a swallow, but both returned, unable to find land. He then sent a raven, which didn't return.

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] comments on the Gilgamesh Epic:
{{cquote|It is common to make legends out of historical events, but not history from legends. ... For instance, in Genesis, God’s judgment is just, he is patient with mankind for 120 years (Genesis 6:3), shows mercy to Noah, and is sovereign. Conversely, the gods in the Gilgamesh Epic are capricious and squabbling, cower at the Flood and are famished without humans to feed them sacrifices. That is, the human writers of the Gilgamesh Epic rewrote the true account, and made their gods in their own image.<ref Name="JS_GE" />}}

=== Common Themes in Flood Accounts ===
There are parallel themes going through most of the accounts of the [[Great Flood (cultural traditions)|Great Flood]]. Here are some of them.

==== Cause ====
Many of the accounts say that the flood was caused by God or some equivalent being.
In Genesis, it was Yahweh<ref>Genesis 6:3</ref>.
In the Gilgamesh Epic, it was the council of the gods<ref Name="JS_GE">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3107 Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic] by Jonathan Sarfati, ''Creation'', vol. 28 No. 4 pp.12-17</ref>.
In the Bundaba (Australian aboriginal) flood story, it was Ngowungu, the Great Father.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1468 Australian Aboriginal Flood Stories], ''Creation'' Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 6-9.</ref>
The Greeks recorded it as being [[Zeus]].<ref name="Greek">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Greek Greek], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>

==== Purpose ====
When the cause of the flood is attributed to a god, the reason is frequently said to be for [[mankind]]'s wickedness.
Genesis adds that "every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time".<ref>Genesis 6:5 (NIV)</ref>
The Miao account from China says, in verse, "These did not God's will nor returned His affection. / But fought with each other defying the Godhead. / Their leaders shook fists in the face of the Mighty."<ref>[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=341 Genesis According to the Miao People], by Edgar A. Truax, ''Impact'', April 1991</ref>
A Navajo account says that it was because of "their sins of adultery and constant quarreling".<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Navajo Navajo (Four Corners area)], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak</ref>

==== What saved the people ====

People were generally saved either by floating out the flood, or fleeing to the top of a mountain. In the former case, the vessel took a variety of forms.
A Hopi Indian story has them surviving in the hollow stems of giant reeds<ref name="Hopi">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Hopi Hopi], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>
The Greek story has them surviving in a chest.<Ref name="Greek" />
In Genesis, [[Noah]] was instructed by God to build an ark to dimensions and other specifications included in the account.

==== Who was saved? ====
The survivors were often a single family.
An Australian aboriginal account has Ngadgja, the Supreme One, telling Gajara to take his wife, his sons, and his sons' wives.<ref name="Wunambal">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1467 Aboriginal Flood Legend], by Howard Coates, ''Creation'' Vol. 4 No.3, pp.9-12</ref>
The Masai account from East Africa has Tumbainot taking his two wives, his six sons, and their wives.<ref name="Masai">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Masai Masai (East Africa)], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>
A Hawaiian story has Nuu taking his wife and three sons.<ref name="Hawaii">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Hawaii Hawaii], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>
Noah took his wife, his three sons, and their wives.<ref>Genesis 7:13</ref>

==== Birds sent out ====
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|300px|right|''The Flood'', by Michaelangelo, detail from the Sistine Chapel, 1509.]]
Genesis describes Noah sending out birds to see if there was yet dry land.<ref>Genesis 8:6-12</ref>
Initially this was unsuccessful, but a subsequent attempt was successful when a dove didn't return. In the Hopi account also, they unsuccessfully sent out birds to find land.<ref name="Hopi" />
An Australian aboriginal account has a cuckoo not returning because it found land.<ref name="Wunambal" />
The Masai account has Tumbainot sending out a dove, which returned because it had no place to rest.<ref name="Masai" />

==== A rainbow ====
The Masai account has four rainbows signifying that God's [[wrath]] was over.<ref name="Masai" />
A Hawaiian account has the god Kane leaving a rainbow as a perpetual sign of his forgiveness.<ref name="Hawaii" />
From an Australian aboriginal story comes this account:
:Ngadja, the Supreme Being, put the rainbow in the sky to keep the rain-clouds back. The rainbow lies bent across the sky; he ties up the clouds behind it and the rain does not come. The rainbow keeps the clouds back and protects us so that the rainfall does not rise too high. Our people understand the significance of it. When we see the rainbow we say, ‘There will not be any abnormally heavy rain.’<ref name="Wunambal" />

Genesis says that the rainbow would be a reminder that God would never again destroy the world with a flood.<ref>Genesis 9:12-17</ref>

==== Criticisms ====

:''See more criticisms in the article on [[Noah's Ark#Criticisms|Noah's Ark]] and [[Flood Geology#Controversy|Flood Geology]].''
Critics of the global flood suggest that the flood accounts are unrelated accounts of local floods, or stories influenced by the arrival of missionaries.

However, Nozomi Osanai responds that "''...the detailed nature of the widely spread statements has common elements to the Bible. In fact, even people who live far from the sea or in mountainous areas have flood traditions which are similar to the Genesis account.''"<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4089/ A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis, chapter 7], by Nozomi Osanai.</ref>

And Murray Adamthwaite responds regarding the missionary influence, "''...that explanation fails since in many cases secular anthropologists gathered the stories before missionaries reached these tribes with the Gospel. In other cases missionaries have related how they indeed told the story of Noah, only to find that the tribal folk already had a similar tale in their own legends.''"<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2538 Animals, a Deluge and Noah’s Ark]</ref>
{{Clear}}

== Other ancient references ==
The Great Flood has left a variety of traditions in many cultures world-wide. In most of them, the stories involve a few survivors and a number of animals in a boat or on a raft; the search for dry land involving a bird; a landing on a mountain, and a sacrifice to the gods after the flood was over.

{| border="1" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="900" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="6"|
|-
!colspan="6" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|European traditions
|-
! width="100" | Culture or people
! width="500" | Details
! width="150" | Name of Noah
! width="150" | Name of mountain
! width="80" | Number of survivors
! width="80" | Animals involved
|-
| Greece
| Deucalion and Pyrrha were warned by Prometheus about the flood and told to build a chest; they survived when the chest landed on a high mountain.<ref>[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0022%3Atext%3DLibrary%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D7%3Asection%3D2 Apollodorus, ''The Library'', book 1]</ref>
| Deucalion
| Mt. Parnassus
| -
| Yes
|-
!colspan="6" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Asian traditions
|-
! width="100" | Culture or people
! width="500" | Details
! width="150" | Name of Noah
! width="150" | Name of mountain
! width="80" | Number of survivors
! width="80" | Animals involved
|-
| Babylonia
| [[Epic of Gilgamesh]]; The god Ea warned Utnapishtim of the imminent destruction of the earth; the ark built was cube-shaped, and held his family, friends, and all animals
| Utnapishtim
| Mt. Nisir
| 8
| Yes; a raven and dove were used to search for dry land as well
|-
| Assyria
| King [[Ashurbanipal]], who lived in the seventh century B.C., recorded, "I have read intricate tablets inscribed with obscure [[Sumerian]] or [[Akkadian]]...inscriptions on stone from before the Flood."
| Utnapishtim; possibly used the same Gilgamesh tales of Babylonia
| Mt. Nisir
| 8
| Yes
|-
| Chaldean
| Xisuthrus was warned of a coming flood by the god Chronos, who ordered him to build a boat in which to carry family, friends, and two of every kind of animal.<ref>[http://rbedrosian.com/euseb2.htm Eusebius, ''Chronicle'', book 1]</ref>
| Xisuthrus
| -
| 8
| Yes; birds were used to find land.
|-
| China
| [[Hihking]]; The Chinese classic record details one family survived a great flood by gathering their sons and sons' wives together in a large boat, whereupon they repopulated the earth afterwards.
| Fuhi
| -
| 8
| Yes
|-
| Sumeria
| [[Eridu Genesis]]: the god [[Enki]] warns Ziudsura to build a large boat due to the coming destruction of the earth. After a flood lasting seven days, Ziudsura sacrifices to the gods.
| Ziudsura
| translation lost
| -
| translation lost
|-
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
|-
!colspan="6" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Australian traditions
|-
! width="100" | Culture or people
! width="500" | Details
! width="150" | Name of Noah
! width="150" | Name of mountain
! width="80" | Number of survivors
! width="80" | Animals involved
|-
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
|-
!colspan="6" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Oceanic Islanders traditions
|-
! width="100" | Culture or people
! width="500" | Details
! width="150" | Name of Noah
! width="150" | Name of mountain
! width="80" | Number of survivors
! width="80" | Animals involved
|-
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
|-
!colspan="6" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|African traditions
|-
! width="100" | Culture or people
! width="500" | Details
! width="150" | Name of Noah
! width="150" | Name of mountain
! width="80" | Number of survivors
! width="80" | Animals involved
|-
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
|-
!colspan="6" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|North American traditions
|-
! width="100" | Culture or people
! width="500" | Details
! width="150" | Name of Noah
! width="150" | Name of mountain
! width="80" | Number of survivors
! width="80" | Animals involved
|-
| Chippewa
| A war between Nanabozho and the Great Serpent who lived at the bottom of Lake Superior; the serpent, being wounded in the fight, vowed to destroy the tribe by a flood. The tribe quickly built rafts, gathered their animals, and escaped to the highest mountains, which were quickly covered over except the one on which stood Nanabozho<ref>[http://www.indians.org/welker/greatflo.htm].</ref>
| Nanabozho
| unknown
| unknown
| Yes
|-
| Choctaw
| The Great Spirit destroyed a corrupt and wicked human race and all life on earth, except a prophet who went in vain to warn the people to repent or die. The prophet survived by building a raft of sassafras logs.<ref>[http://www.tc.umn.edu/~mboucher/mikebouchweb/choctaw/flood1.htm].</ref>
| known only as the prophet.
| unknown
| unknown
| Yes; the bird which led him to land he named "Puchi Yushuba" (lost pigeon)
|-
!colspan="6" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|South American traditions
|-
! width="100" | Culture or people
! width="500" | Details
! width="150" | Name of Noah
! width="150" | Name of mountain
! width="80" | Number of survivors
! width="80" | Animals involved
|-
| Tamanakis (Carib tribe, Orinoco River basin)
| A man and woman escaped to the highest peak after being warned of a flood. Afterward, the tossed coconuts behind them, which became the next race of man.
| -
| Mt Tapanacu
| -
| -
|-
|}

== Effects of ''the Flood'' ==
=== Natural Effects ===
==== Flood Geology ====
:''Main article: [[Flood Geology]]''
Flood geology is the study of the Earth's geology in the search of evidence for the Flood in the [[geology]] of the Earth.

=== Separation of Continents===
Some [[Young Earth Creationists]] point to the flood as the reason for the separation of [[Pangea]], rather than the secular view that the separation was caused by [[plate tectonics]] over millions or even billions of years.

=== Ice Age ===

Some scientists think that the Great Flood caused the Ice Age. Meteorologist Michael J. Oard
states in ''Frozen in Time'' that:

<blockquote>
''The Flood and its aftershocks provide the volcanic dust and gases that bring the summer cooling indispensable for the Ice Age. Water from the “fountains of the great deep” and mixing during the Flood provides a warm ocean. In the mid and high latitudes the warm ocean would cause copious evaporation and produce massive amounts of snow. The two ingredients required for an Ice Age, cool temperatures and tons of snow, were dramatically fulfilled immediately after the Genesis flood. This unique climate would persist for hundreds of years after the Flood as the intensity of the two mechanisms slowly decreased.'' <ref> [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/fit/chapter7.asp The Genesis flood caused the Ice Age] </ref> <ref> Oard, M.J., 1990. An ice age caused by the Genesis Flood, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajón, California. </ref>
</blockquote>

=== Spiritual Effects ===

Interpreting the way Noah obeyed God (Genesis 6:22):

<blockquote>
Noah was faithful for 120 long hard disappointing years. You can be sure, however, he was a happy man the day the rains came and he was safe and dry inside the ark that was the product of his faith and obedience to God...

Noah submitted himself and worshiped God... His strength to live for God was that he chose to walk daily with the Lord. The same power is available to us to believe in God and let God direct our lives.
<ref> [http://www.bible-truth.org/GEN6.HTM THE GREAT WORLD WIDE FLOOD] </ref>
</blockquote>

Consequently at present we should ask ourselves: What kind of faith do we have?, Does my faith guide me always in my daily decision? ([[Ibidem]])

== Modern explanations ==

[[Image:The building of the ark.jpg|thumb|left|The building of the ark by Bertram of Minden.]]
=== Black Sea theory ===
In 2000, explorers discovered evidence that humans lived where the [[Black Sea]] now is and speculated the sea was created during a great flood<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/</ref>. Dr. Robert Ballard expanded on this theory, postulating that the Black Sea was much lower during the [[Ice Age]] (including the finding of a beach thousands of feet underwater), and when the walls holding back the [[Mediterranean Sea]] at the Bosporus broke, the sea rushed in and drowned the inhabitants; those who survived told the tale orally, and according to Ballard this became the basis for the flood accounts of Genesis and Gilgamesh<ref>http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html</ref>. This theory is for a local flood, and not the world-wide flood as recorded in Genesis and many other cultural traditions. It also doesn't fit with many other details of the Genesis account.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3392 Proof of Noah's Flood at the Black Sea?] by Creation Ministries International.</ref>

=== Crustal Displacement Theory ===
In ''When the sky fell: In search of Atlantis'' (1996), Rand Flem Ath<ref>http://www.flem-ath.com</ref> expanded on Professor [[Charles Hapgood]]'s theory of crustal displacement whereby the entire earth's crust moved with respect to the core. The suggested date for this was about 10,000 years BC. If a displacement had occurred then it would have caused enormous disruption to the the earth's oceans with massive tsunamis and heavy rain. Although the book was nominally about the disappearance of [[Atlantis]], the theory of crustal displacement not only explains the discrepancies in ice thickness in [[Greenland]] and [[Antarctica]] but also the sudden demise of the [[mammoth]]s. This theory could also potentially explain the widespread existence of flood accounts throughout different cultures.

==See Also==
*[[Causes of the Great Flood]]
*[[Flood geology]]

==External links==
*[http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html Greek Myths: Deucalion and the Flood]
*[http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet 11 (Flood Story)]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologycolumn.html Geological evidence from Northwest Creation]
*[http://www.genesisfiles.com/Library.htm#B Genesis Files website]
*[http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T2631 DELUGE OF NOAH]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp Was the Flood Global? Answers in Genesis article]
*[http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html Black Sea theory, from Dr. Robert Ballard and National Geographic]
*[http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/lore64.html Native American flood story]
*[http://wovoca.com/myths-flood-1.htm Collection of Flood myths]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3107 A table comparing specific details in a number of different flood accounts]

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

[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Natural Disasters]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Ancient History]]
[[Category:Book of Genesis]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Nutritional science

2011-05-21T20:47:28Z

WilliamB1:

'''Nutritional science''' focuses on the relationship between nutrients, the body and health.<ref>http://www.collegeboard.com/csearch/majors_careers/profiles/majors/30.1901.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Science]]

Witch

2011-05-17T16:56:02Z

WilliamB1: sp

A '''witch''' is someone who practices witchcraft. The name can be used for either male or female practitioners.

==Definition==
Witchcraft is a loose group of beliefs, practices, or rituals that can be variously adopted by almost anyone of any faith. Witchcraft isn't strictly a religion although it is generally practiced by people with religious beliefs. Witchcraft does not have any staple beliefs but instead consists of many different beliefs drawn from many different places. The practice of natural medicine, folk medicine, spiritual healing, divination, and shamanism can also be applied under the umbrella term of witchcraft. More modern practices such as the practice of alternative medicine as well as New Age healing techniques (such as Crystal healing, herbalism, Reiki, and aromatherapy) can also technically fall under the witchcraft umbrella. Some practices (such as certain herbal remedies) go far back into human history although it is virtually impossible to distinguish exactly the lineage of many of the practices considered witchcraft.

==The Difference Between Wicca and Witchcraft==
Wicca can technically be considered a witchcraft tradition, however because Wicca is more codified and has more defined traditions and practices as well as a large adherent population, Wicca is generally considered it's own belief system.

==Europe==
In Europe--both Catholic and Protestant areas-- from 1350 to 1650 several hundred thousand witches were executed--often by burning--after legal proceedings. One-quarter of those executed for witchcraft were men. In Exodus 22:18 the Old Testament specifically bans witchcraft under penalty of death. A famous British case was the [[Pendle Witch]] trials of 1612 AD.

Many of those executed were targeted less for spiritual reasons and more for earthly concerns; the accuser and the administrator of punishment often shared the spoils when the belongings and wealth of a person executed for witchcraft. The hysteria also gave a perfect opportunity for people to get rid of people they disliked for personal reasons or people who didn't fit the idea the community had of an ideal member.

==Colonial America==
The most famous episode was the [[Salem Witch Trials]] of 1692 in Massachusetts, in which 19 accused witches were hanged (none were burned).

Salem was typical in that the belief in witches was widespread in colonial America. In Virginia supernatural beliefs played a major role in interpreting the unknown and establishing social order. The supernatural world of the early settlers was comprised of belief in benevolent and demonic forces, divine judgment, omens, magic, witchcraft, combat with the devil, and other ideas transported from England. This complex supernatural world functioned to explain the unknown, sanction colonization, demonize the native population, control the colonists, and provide a defense against internal and external enemies.<ref>Edward L. Bond, "Source of Knowledge, Source of Power: the Supernatural World of English Virginia, 1607-1624," ''Virginia Magazine of History and Biography''wicc 2000 108(2): 105-138. 0042-6636
</ref>
==Romantics==
In 19th century romanticism, witches and the occult became popular figures of novels and fairy-tales. Most of the times they were of evil and dangerous character, but there are also examples of benevolent character. At about the same time they became popular [[carnival]] figures.
==Indians==
Most of the American Indian tribes believed in witchcraft and practised magic. Many Native Americans have converted to Christianity, however the old traditions of many of the tribes are still practiced and kept alive today.

==Modern Usage==

The term [[witchhunt]] is also used to denote a political crusade against a particular group.

Witchcraft remains prevalent in Africa as well as Haiti. In many African countries, there is great fear and often paranoia about witchcraft and it's effects. People are often attacked or even killed because they are suspected of being a witch by their neighbors.

==See also==
* [[Salem Witch Trials]]
* [[Wizard of Oz]]
==Further reading==
===Colonial America===
* Boyer, Paul, and Stephen Nissenbaum. ''Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft'' (1974)
* Breslaw, Elaine G., ed. ''Witches of the Atlantic World: A Historical Reader and Primary Sourcebook'' (2000). 561 pp.
*Demos, John. ''Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England'' (1982)
* Godbeer, Richard. ''The Devil's Dominion: Magic and Religion in Early New England.'' (1992). 253 pp.
* Hall, David D. "Witchcraft and the Limits of Interpretation," ''New England Quarterly'' 1985 58(2): 253-281. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/365516 in JSTOR]
===Europe===
* Ankarloo, Bengt and Henningsen, Gustav, eds. ''Early Modern European Witchcraft. Centres and Peripheries.'' (1990). 477 pp.
* Barstow, Anne Llewellyn. ''Witchcraze: A New History of the European Witch Hunts.'' (1994). 255 pp.
* Ben-Yehuda, Nachman. "The European Witch Craze of the 14th to 17th Centuries: A Sociologist's Perspective," ''American Journal of Sociology'', Vol. 86, No. 1 (Jul., 1980), pp. 1-31 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778849 in JSTOR]
* Breslaw, Elaine G., ed. ''Witches of the Atlantic World: A Historical Reader and Primary Sourcebook'' (2000). 561 pp.
* Levack, Brian P. ''The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe.'' (1987). 267 pp.
* Macfarlane, Alan. ''Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England'' (1970)
* Thomas, Keith. ''Religion and the Decline of Magic'' (1971) in Britain and Europe
* Williams, Gerhild Scholz. ''Defining Dominion: The Discourses of Magic and Witchcraft in Early Modern France and Germany.'' (1995). 234 pp.
===Witchcraft today===
* Ashforth, Adam. "Witchcraft, Violence, and Democracy in the New South Africa," ''Cahiers d'Études Africaines'', Vol. 38, [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4392879 in JSTOR]
* Ciekawy, Diane, and Peter Geschiere. "Containing Witchcraft: Conflicting Scenarios in Postcolonial Africa," ''African Studies Review,'' Vol. 41, No. 3 (Dec., 1998), pp. 1-14 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/525351 in JSTOR]
* Lewis, James R., ed. ''Magical Religion and Modern Witchcraft'' (1996). 423 pp.
* Reis, Elizabeth, ed. ''Spellbound: Women and Witchcraft in America'' (1998). 282pp. on Wicca

== References ==

* [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=312664 Exodus 22]

[[category:Paganism]]
[[category:Witchcraft]]
[[category:Religion and Politics]]

Ada Lovelace

2011-05-17T16:53:59Z

WilliamB1: sp

[[Image:Ada 1838.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
'''Ada Lovelace''' (1815-1852) was a British mathematician involved in the extremely early history of computers, long before the "modern era" of actual construction of working computers. She worked with [[Charles Babbage]] on an extremely visionary, completely mechanical, computer called the "analytical engine". It was never built, because Babbage's design was way ahead of its time.

Along with Babbage and others, she made notes for programming the proposed computer, and she became famous in the modern era for her description of the "classic recurrence relation for computing Bernoulli numbers"<ref>
[http://www.cs.fit.edu/~ryan/ada/lovelace.html Augusta Ada Byron (1815-1852)] - Ryan Stansifer, Associate Professor - Department of Computer Sciences - Florida Institute of Technology</ref> used by [[Jakob Bernoulli]]. On this basis, feminists eager to promote [[women in science]] decided to dub her "the first computer programmer".<ref name="sciam">[http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Ada_and_the_First_Computer.pdf Scientific American, May 1999, pp76]</ref><ref>http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/Files/ada-bio.html</ref><ref>http://www.cs.fit.edu/~ryan/ada/lovelace.html</ref>. This claim arises from the fact that she was first to publish a paper (in 1843) containing a mathematical algorithm ''encoded for the purpose of being executed by an automatically controlled digital computer''. Her program calculated [[Bernoulli numbers]]. That is, she wrote the first published, surviving computer program designed to solve a real problem.

But the issue is not clear-cut, because there are different opinions about what constitutes a "program" and what constitutes a "computer". Perhaps the main objection is that the computer for which her program was written was never built, so her program did not actually run. Ada had to write the algorithm on paper, rather than at a keypunch or computer terminal, of course. But, to use modern terminology, she actually "wrote code". Also, since the term "program" had not been coined, she described her algorithm as a "plan". In the 20th century, the program was carefully analyzed and simulated, and found to have a minor "bug".

==Early Life==
She was the only legitimate child of of the famous British poet [[George Gordon, Lord Byron|Lord Byron]], but he abandoned her and her mother before her first birthday. She was raised by her mother.

She was born Augusta Ada Byron, and called by her middle name as a child. She married William King, who later became Earl of Lovelace, making her "Countess of Lovelace". She has been called Augusta Ada, Augusta Ada Byron, Augusta Ada Lovelace, Ada Lovelace, Ada King, or just Ada.

In October of 1842 Luigi Federico Menabrea (1809-1896), an Italian professor of mechanics at University of Turin (and later premier of the Kingdom of Italy), published a paper describing the function and theory of Babbage's Analytical Engine. Ada translated the paper from French to English and added her own extensive comments. (See ''Science and Reform, Selected Works of Charles Babbage'' by Anthony Hyman.) This was published in 1843 and impressed Babbage, for it included, as Babbage himself wrote,
{{cquote|some complicated programs of her own, the most complex of these being one to calculate the sequence of Bernoulli numbers.}}

==What did Ada's Bernoulli program look like?==
The program, and detailed technical commentary, appeared in a paper "Sketch of the Analytical Engine Invented by Charles Babbage" that Ada wrote in 1843. The program itself has been reproduced in the "sidebar" on page 79<ref name="sciam"/>.
First there is a list of the six input and output variables that are used: V1, V2, V3, V21, V22 and V23. And the temporary variables V4 through V13. In modern terminology in a strongly typed language such as C++, we would write something like:

int V1, V2, V3; // inputs
int V21, V22, V23; // outputs
int V4, V5, V6, V7, V8, V9, V10, V11, V12, V13; // temps

At the start of the program, she gives initialization of V1=1, V2=2, and V3=N. (Modern computers often have "immediate" instructions to handle constants without using up registers.)

Then she lists the 23 instructions, giving their source and destination registers, opcodes, and commentary on the progress of the program. The first 5 instructions, for example, are:

V4=V5=V6 = V2 * V3; // Get 2N. The machine allowed multiple destination registers.
V4 = V4 - V1; // Get 2N-1.
V5 = V5 + V1; // Get 2N+1.
V11 = V4 / V5; // Get (2N-1)/(2N+1).
V11 = V12 / V2; // Get (1/2) * (2N-1)/(2N+1).

(She used the old-fashioned multiply and divide signs "<math>\times</math>" and "<math>\div</math>". These seem quaint by today's standards, but they were the symbols that people used at the time. Neither the 026 keypunch nor the ASCII character set had been invented.)

She used two loops—see the other sidebar on page 78. V10 is the outer loop counter. The loop consists of instructions 13 to 23. It continues until V10 counts down to 1.

==Was it a computer?==
The "analytical engine" was so far ahead of its time that one might be tempted to call it just a "visionary idea". The technology of the time was nowhere near capable of building it. Even the much-less-ambitious "difference engine" was beyond the technology of the day—making the counters do arithmetic reliably required very careful machining of the parts. Only a small partial prototype of the difference engine was built in Babbage's lifetime. But Babbage clearly knew what he wanted<ref>That Babbage knew what he was doing is attested to by the fact that his full difference engine was finally constructed in 1991 (the bicentennial of Babbage's birth) and is on display at the London Science Museum. Babbage's original plans were almost exactly correct.</ref>. His vision of a calculating device that can perform operations under control of a "program" punched into cards, and that makes control decisions based on the data resulting from the calculation steps, was incredibly prescient. It was exactly the principle used in modern computers. Lovelace understood that vision, and even extended it to the idea that computers might perform tasks beyond purely numerical ones, such as composing music. The fact that the analytical engine was mechanical rather than electronic did not make it any less a computer. It just made it harder to build. It took about 100 years for the field of electrical engineering to make computers such as that envisioned by Babbage realizable.

==Was it a RISC machine or a CISC machine?==
From looking at Ada's program for Bernoulli polynomials, it is clear that the machine did its calculation by manipulating numbers in specific registers. It did not have any "random access memory" that could be addressed. CISC machines address memory in their operation instructions, while RISC machines operate on registers, loading and storing memory locations only with specific instructions. So the analytical engine would have to be classified as a RISC machine in that sense.

==Was Ada's program a real program, or just a "description of an algorithm"?==
It is impossible to answer this to everyone's satisfaction. She certainly didn't punch it on cards or type it into a computer terminal. (She might conceivably have punched it onto cards if Babbage had made his design sufficiently concrete as to assign binary opcodes, but he never got anywhere near that far.) Since it never ran on a computer in the form in which she wrote it, it could be argued that it wasn't a program, but was merely an algorithm. But, whatever it was, it was written in the peculiarly stilted language of computer machine code. That is, the numbers that it was manipulating were assigned to specific registers. As the iteration loop cycled around, those registers were overwritten with new values. That is not the way ordinary mathematical algorithms are expressed. They are expressed in terms of more abstract formulas and recurrences. In Ada's case, the formulas were broken down into individual operations, manipulating specific registers that she specified. The recurrence was specified by manipulating a count register and testing whether it had reached zero.

Algorithms like Euclid's algorithm or Heron's formula, or even integration techniques or the description of the factorial function, are not described that way unless one is writing a computer program.

"Algorithms" for calculating Bernoulli numbers had been known for some time. But she wrote this "algorithm" in the form of ''specifically realizable numerical operations'' that she (naively, Babbage's design was ''far'' beyond what the technology of the day would have provided) believed the analytical engine could have done. And she used the ''specific ability of a calculating device to make control decisions based on the data''.

* Ada suggested to Babbage writing a plan for how the engine might calculate Bernoulli numbers. This plan, is now regarded as the first "computer program." [http://www.well.com/user/adatoole/bio.htm]

==Was Ada really first? Were the Bernoulli notes the first program?==

The decision to dub Ada Lovelace the [[first computer programmer]] ignores the historical fact that
*Babbage and others also had written “programs” for the never completed Analytical Engine. [http://www.cs.fit.edu/~ryan/ada/lovelace.html]

Also, she was not the sole author of the notes on calculating [[Bernoulli numbers]]. The notes were originally written by another person, and she translated these and expanded upon them. This would make her a co-author of the notes.

There are those who claim <ref>http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/babbage/ada.html</ref> that Babbage himself, or an assistant of his, or perhaps some of his sons, must have written "programs" before Ada did. Issues like this arise from time to time, perhaps most notably in the "calculus war" between Newton and Leibniz, or the "non-Euclidean geometry war" among Gauss, Bolyai, and Lobachevsky. The scientific community generally gives great weight to the act of publishing one's work. If these other people wrote programs before Ada did, they don't seem to have published them, and they are lost. It is not known what problems these earlier programs might have been solving.

She was certainly one of the pioneers of software development, but whether she was the first person to write notes for an algorithm that a machine could carry out is not certain. Nor is there wide agreement on whether such notes constitute an actual [[computer program]].

==Controversy==
Some people, perhaps motivated by misdirected passion over the issue of feminism, take an unexpectedly strong stand in favor of, or against, the idea that she was the world's first computer programmer. What one person did 170 years ago really has nothing to do with contemporary social issues.

==The [[ADA (computer language)|ADA]] programming language==
Starting in the 1970's, a project was undertaken by the U.S. Department of Defense to find one high-level language to be used for all DoD software, replacing the hundreds of languages then in use. After much evaluation work, the winning language (called "green" in the evaluation process) was named ADA in Ada Lovelace's honor. Its goal of replacing all the previous languages has not been met, partly because interoperability considerations have changed the way software is put together, relative to the way things were done in the 1970's. The ADA language has had less than complete acceptance in the military, and is not widely used in the civilian sector.

==References==
{{reflist|1}}

==Further Reading==
*[http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1999/03/16feature2.html Repurposing Ada] - contains several denials (including one by a biographer) that her "Notes" were a [[computer program]]
*[http://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/sketch.html Menabrea's Sketch and Ada's Notes]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Lovelace, Ada}}
[[category:Women]]

Eratosthenes

2011-05-17T16:47:45Z

WilliamB1:

[[File:Eratosthenes.jpg|right]]
'''Eratosthenes''' of Cyrene (275-194 B.C.) scientific writer, astronomer, geographer and poet, he was the first Greek [[mathematician]] to calculate the circumference of the earth and the tilting of the earth's axis during rotation. He used principles of [[Euclid|Euclidean]] [[geometry]].

He also invented the [[sieve of Eratosthenes]], which is a technique for separating composite from prime numbers in a natural series. The sieve appears in the ''Introduction to arithmetic'' by [[Nicomedes]].

Eratosthenes was the third librarian at Alexandria; in addition to his knowledge in many different areas, he was an accomplished mapmaker. Eratosthenes also made a catalogue of stars with 675 stars listed in it.

His followers called him the second [[Plato]].

<blockquote>
He was, indeed, recognised by his contemporaries as a man of great distinction in all branches of knowledge, though in each subject he just fell short of the highest place. On the latter ground he was called Beta, and another nickname applied to him, Pentathlos, has the same implication, representing as it does an all-round athlete who was not the first runner or wrestler but took the second prize in these contests as well as others. [http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Eratosthenes.html]
</blockquote>

Eratosthenes died in 194 BC in Alexandria, [[Egypt]].

== See also ==

*[[Polymath]]
*[[Archimedes]]
*[[Greek influence on Western Culture]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/191064/Eratosthenes-of-Cyrene Eratosthenes]
*[http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/people/ancient_epoch/eratosthenes.html Eratosthenes]

== References ==

* Thomas Little Heath, A History of Greek Mathematics (2 vols.) (Oxford, 1921).

[[Category:Mathematicians]]
[[Category:Ancient Greece]]

London Underground

2011-05-17T16:47:15Z

WilliamB1: sp

[[Image:London Underground.jpg|thumb|right|A sign for the underground in London England.]]
The '''London Underground''' (often referred to as "The Tube") is London's [[Subway|underground railway system]]. Many lines in the outskirts are at or above ground level.

It is comprised of 11 lines - Bakerloo, Central, Circle, District, Hammersmith & City, Jubilee, Metropolitan, Northern, Piccadilly (serves [[London Heathrow Airport|Heathrow Airport]]), Victoria and Waterloo & City lines.

The London underground is the oldest subway system in the world.

==Bakerloo Line==
A deep level line, it is one of the five lines that serves destinations south of the Thames, running from Elephant & Castle to Harrow & Wealdstone. Most of the subterranean section was built in the 19th century at the same time as one of the cities main sewers, after which it is named. It is also one of the few stations to have a fully underground terminus, at Elephant and Castle. A long stretch of the northern section of the route runs on the Watford DC line, and shares the track with heavy rail commuter services. There are much talked about but unfunded plans to extend the tunnels south-east to Lewisham and take over the Hayes branch line.

==Central Line==
A deep level line, the Central runs though the very centre of the City of London east to west, and is the longest line on the network by some margin. It is one of the most important lines on the network, and one of the most varied. A major bottleneck is the oldest subterranean section between Liverpool Street and St. Paul's where the narrow tunnels (11ft6" wide in parts) and extremely tight turns drastically reduces the operating speed of trains. However the line received massive investment in the early 90's, and an automatic "driverless" system (though an operator is still present in the cab at all times) means services can operative with a service interval of every 1-2minutes. At the time of the redevelopment, the little used Ongar extension, far beyond London boundaries in rural Essex and operated as a separate, very basic shuttle service, was abandoned. Subsequent overcrowding of the current terminus in Epping has led to proposals to redevelop the extension to the same standards as the rest of the line and reopen it to through trains from the rest of the line. The line runs from Ruislip in the north-western edge of Greater London to Epping in Essex. A short branch also serves Ealing in inner west London.

==Circle Line==
The Circle line is a "virtual" line on the system that has no actual track. It's coloured yellow on the map and, contrary to its name, since 2010 actually forms a spiral shape.

==District Line==
This line is one of the most complex on the system. It is a sub-surface line that as built via cut and cover methods, causing massive disruption to city inhabitants, and thus many delays in construction, as it passes through areas belonging to wealthy landowners who resisted its development. It runs east to west, passing through the southern edge of the city centre, immediately north of the Thames. Like the Bakerloo line, some of it's alignment follows a sewerage system built at the same time known as the Embankment, from which one station takes it's name. It runs from a single eastern terminus at Upminster to Earls Court, where a short single track spur leads to Olympia and Edgeware Road. The line also continues west, where one branch heads to Wimbledon, following a heavy rail alignment with separate tracks. This branch is runs at maximum capacity and is a major bottleneck. Another branch runs to Ealing, and a final route heads further west still, before turning south to Richmond, sharing tracks with heavy rail on the final southern alignment. The Richmond-Gunnersbury section of this route was to be withdrawn and capacity released to allow a branch of the new Crossrail line to serve Richmond, but residents blocked the proposal, fearing government intervention and micromanagement of the Crossrail project will leave it unfinished or badly delayed, and leave Richmond residents with no mass transit service.

==Hammersmith & City Line==
A sub-surface line built via cut and cover, the route of this line encompasses the oldest sections of the network, dating to the 1860's. Today its one of the least crowded lines on the network, as most of it's route is also served by other lines on shared track. It runs on a north east to south west alignment, running from Barking in the east, to Hammersmith in the west. Despite the name, the line only skirts the historic Square Mile of the City of London, stopping at Liverpool Street, Farringdon and Moorgate, roughly following the alignment of the Roman era boundary of the city for this stretch. The Barking to Aldgate East stretch of the route is shared with the District Line, and Liverpool Street to Baker Street is shared with the Metropolitan Line. The Shepherds Bush line is coloured pink on the map, in reference to the artistic and gay friendly Shepherd's Bush area, which it serves. Along with the District Line, it will be one of the first Underground lines to receive air conditioned trains.

==Jubilee Line==
The newest line on the network, with the Stanmore to Charing Cross section opening in the 1970's. The southern/eastern section from Green Park to Stratford opened in 1999, in time for the Millennium Dome exhibition in North Greenwich. The Charing Cross section closed at this point, to allow for the new alignment, although the (now) branch line is kept in fully serviceable condition and has been proposed as a possible routing for a future DLR service. The new section of the line is radically different to the older 70's section, and every other line on the Underground. It has platform screen doors on the subterranean stations, and extremely large, futuristic stations featuring smooth brushed metal and smooth, minimalist concrete architectural style. the stations are designed to allow easy upgrading of the service and to handle much higher passenger volumes. The station at Canary Wharf, in the new financial district has been likened to a cathedral, whilst the station at North Greenwich can handle 20,000 passengers per hour. The line is the only one to have a direct interchange with all other Underground lines. When first proposed in the 70's, it was to be called the Fleet line after an underground London river, and was originally to be coloured grey, in association with the Royal Navy. It was changed to the Jubilee name prior to opening, to celebrate the Silver Jubilee of HRH Queen Elizabeth II, and the grey shade was altered to silver.

==Metropolitan Line==
The Metropolitan line is the oldest line on the network, and the oldest subterranean urban rail system in the world, with the first stretches opening in 1863. The line has altered and expanded drastically over the years, and is very different to other LU lines. It is unique in that significant stretches of the route are quad-tracked, allowing several "speeds" of service, with fast and semi-fast trains bypassing certain stations. It is also mostly above ground, with only 6 out of over 41 miles running underground. Also, unlike all other lines except the W&C, it does not cross through and out of the city centre, terminating at Aldgate, within zone 1. The line also has the most remote station on the network, at Chesham, more than 25 miles from Charing Cross, the official centre of London. It also has the longest distance between two stops, between Chehsam and Chalfont & Latimer, almost 4 miles apart. It is the line on the LU network to serve zones 7 to 9, which lie outside of Greater London. The line layout is complex, having no less than four branches, with one shared with the Picadilly line (the Uxbridge branch),and another (Amersham branch) with mainline rail services, whilst the lightly used (and poorly served). The line colour is a brown/purple known as "Corporate Magenta" by TFL.

Trains on the line are currently a highly unusual design, featuring entirely lateral 3+2 high backed seating, used on no other LU line. This is due to the long journey times with infrequent stops, so provides maximum seating space at the expense of overall passenger capacity. The line is one of the quietest on the network, and is mostly used for long distance suburban journeys, and with its mix of "fast" and "slow" trains shares more in common with suburban commuter rail than mass transit. When the existing 1960s stock is phased out in the next few years, the line will receive the standard new air conditioned sub-surface stock, which will be shared across several lines and feature a more conventional arrangement.

==External Link==
*[http://tfl.gov.uk/tube Official Website]

[[Category: Transportation]]

England

2011-05-17T16:44:45Z

WilliamB1:

[[Image:England.gif|right|thumb|300px|England (highlighted in light green), showing the boundaries of the ceremonial counties.]]
'''England''' is a constituent country of the [[United Kingdom]] located on the island of [[Great Britain]] in the north-west of [[Europe]].
It is home of the [[English]] language currently spoken by perhaps a billion people worldwide, and was the seat of an empire that spanned the globe.
England is the largest of the UK's constituent countries, both in terms of area and population. It is also home to the UK's capital and [[parliament]], making this area politically and economically important to the UK as a whole. England's government is technically a Constitutional Monarchy, although it exhibits many aspects of [[Socialism]].

== History ==

The prehistoric inhabitants of the island of Britain were largely [[Celt]]ic.
From AD 43, the [[Roman]]s invaded [[Britain]] and took control of the southern half of the islands, where they founded the fort of "Londinium", which later became [[London]].

[[File:England900.jpg|thumb|280px|England and its neighbors about 900 AD]]
As the [[Roman Empire]] abandoned Britain in AD410, [[Germanic]] tribes, specifically the [[Angles]], [[Saxons]] and [[Jutes]], began to settle over the majority of the island. Kingdoms formed, such as Northumbria (Anglian) in the north, Wessex (named after the West Saxons) in the south west and Kent (probably settled by Jutes, and now the name of a county) in the south east. Parts of the regions now known as [[Wales]], [[Scotland]], and the county of Cornwall continued to be independent Celtic nations for some time after this. The Germanic invaders were still [[pagan]]s when they conquered part of Britain (e.g. [[Penda]] of Mercia was (allegedly) the last pagan King). The English peoples were converted to [[Christianity]], however, in the 7th Century AD. This happened from two directions: the mission of [[St. Augustine]], emissary of Gregory the Great came initially to Kent, while the (successful) mission to the Northumbrian Angles (and from there to peoples further south) was from the [[Celtic Church]] based in northern British monasteries such as [[Iona]] and [[Lindisfarne]]. The entire [[British Isles]] later came under the sway of [[Roman Catholicism]] as the powerful Northumbrian King, Oswy, chose in favour of Roman practice in AD 664 ('Synod of Whitby').
[[Image:London England.jpg|right|300px]]
Later, in 1066 AD, the Norman French Duke [[William the Conqueror]] defeated the last [[Anglo-Saxon]] King, [[Harold Godwinson]]. William established himself as king of England, and the present day English monarchy traces its descent from William.

Amongst the privileged elite [[French]] language and customs became a part of English culture, however for the most part the common population continued to use their own language and customs. William retained significant territories on mainland Europe, in what is now France. For many hundreds of years England fought a series of wars (including the [[Hundred Years War]]) for possession of northern France. These did not end until 1588 with the loss of [[Calais]]. The [[Channel Islands]] are still a crown dependency to this day.

On the basis of their territories in England and France the Norman monarchs became influential in Europe. In 1215, rebellious nobles forced [[King John]] to sign the [[Magna Carta]], essentially a charter guaranteeing the rights of the king's subject nobles and the church, and setting forward the precedent that the monarch's powers were bound by law. In 1455-1487 a series of conflicts called the [[Wars of the Roses]] were fought between the noble families of York and Lancaster for control of the throne.

After the [[Wars of the Roses]] had been won by Henry of Lancaster, the reign of the [[Tudor dynasty|Tudors]] began. Henry VII, as he became, was more concerned with defending his crown and so concentrated mainly on domestic policies. While Henry VII is one of England's less famous kings he was one of the few monarchs ever to leave the crown solvent upon his death. Henry VIII, unlike his father, was obsessed with winning glory on the battlefield, preferably in France. Henry launched three major wars throughout his reign against France and in the process managed to capture Boulogne. However Henry is most famous for his split with Rome. When the current [[Pope]] refused to allow him to divorce his first wife Catherine of Aragon, Henry declared himself head of the English Church and decreed that the Pope had no power over England. During his reign Henry had six wives, of which only three bore him children. Of these, only one was a son - a sickly child who reigned as Edward VI for just six years after his father's death. His daughter Elizabeth, however, was crowned Queen in 1558 and became perhaps England's greatest and best-loved monarch.

== Religion ==
In 1533 AD King [[Henry VIII]] formed the [[Church of England]] after the pope refused to annul the marriage between the King and Catherine of Aragon, while originally the CoE followed a policy of Catholic without the Pope his successors Edward and Elizabeth moved the church in a far more [[Protestantism|Protestant]] direction. Henry established himself as the head of the church and made it the state religion of England. This situation continues to this day, although in much modified form. The Queen is still the nominal head of the church, although purely as a figurehead. Decisions technically taken by the Queen are in fact done only on the advice of her ministers, who in matters of the church invariably act on the advice of the church leaders. Until recently certain bishops of the Church of England were automatically given seats in the House of Lords. The Church of England is closely involved with the ceremonies associated with England, for example at coronations or royal weddings.

Since the [[Reformation]] the country has remained primarily Anglican with the notable exception of the Catholic reign of [[Mary I]]. More recently, the number of [[Roman Catholics]] is poised to overtake the number of [[Anglicans]] in the country, a trend that is likely to continue with an influx of migrants from Catholic countries such as [[Ireland]] and recent [[EU]] accession countries such as [[Poland]][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1386939.ece]. As with the UK as a whole, the significant minority religions include [[Hinduism]], [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]].

A 2001 census gave the following figures for religious affiliation: [[Christianity]]: 71.6%, [[Islam]]: 3.1%, [[Hindu]]: 1.1%, [[Sikh]]: 0.7%, [[Jewish]]: 0.5%, and [[Buddhist]]: 0.3%, No Faith: 22.3%. Approximately 7% of responders did not answer the question.<ref>http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/ethnicity.asp </ref> In spite of this clear [[Christian]] mandate, England maintains a system of mainly nominally-secular-but-effectively-atheist schools (although it does support some "faith schools" such as [[Peter Vardy]]'s Emmanuel Schools Foundation through the Academies program).

== Influence ==

England is the home of the English language, which was later spread to all parts of the world by the [[British Empire]], along with traditional English concepts such as universal suffrage, parliamentary government, the jury system, and freedom of speech.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==
*[[English Bill of Rights]]
*[[English Civil War]]
*[[English Painting]]
*[[English coronation oath]]

[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:England| ]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:British History]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-05-17T12:50:24Z

WilliamB1:

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]]. To date, no fossils of ''H. darwinicus orangutanishicus'' have been found.]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 68 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only about 3%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# The annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
# Evolution is internally inconsistent. It posits that all life must continuously improve, but on the other hand, it holds that some creatures, like the horseshoe crab, the alligator, the shark, and the [[coelacanth]],<ref>http://www.dinofish.com/</ref> have remained virtually unchanged for improbably long time periods.
# According to evolutionary theory, cavemen with no scientific or genetic knowledge domesticated the wolf (''canis lupus'') into a different species - the dog (''canis familiaris''). However, many experts on dog genetics have created hundreds of different dog breeds over the years through selective mating, but they are all the same species. If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
# Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life. Similarly, [[entropy]] (disorder) increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own. According to [[Cornell University]] [[geneticist]] [[John C. Sanford]], not even the energy of the Sun, which might otherwise reduce entropy in a system not thermodynamically isolated such as the Earth, is capable of turning back the inexorable decline of our planet's collected genomes. <ref>[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/respected-cornell-geneticist-rejects-darwinism-in-his-recent-book/]</ref> It seems reasonable to infer, then, that the [[End Times]] will come before or during the eventual collapse of the world's [[ecosystems]] that will come as a result of this irreversible deterioration.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems. Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.
# [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons: First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation
# Evolution cannot explain how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if evolution said that beauty were useful then we would all expect to see the same things as beautiful.
# The fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.
# The manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day
# Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.
# Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemicals in their blood that essentially act as anti-freeze. Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.
# The blood of tunicates such as the sea squirt is based on the rare element [[vanadium]] instead of the abundant [[iron]] used in other vertebrates, which would have required a complete re-tooling of its entire circulatory biochemistry <ref>http://www.earthlife.net/inverts/ascidiacea.html</ref>.
# Animals exist in isolated places without any plausible motivation or means for getting there, such as on remote islands or more than 1200 feet high on top of the vertical cliffs of [[Devils Tower]]. Even humans (though large and intelligent) were unable to ascend the peak until 1893, and required specialized climbing equipment.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
# Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
# The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>
# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism (See especially [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', which denies altruism without providing any evidence to back up his enormous claim)
# Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
# Evolution should have removed HIV from the human race as we would have built an immunity to it, much like bacteria do to anti-biotics, yet we have not. In fact the continued existence of disease is proof against evolution as natural selection would have left only humans who were immune to them.
# Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.
# Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.
# [[Menopause]] renders women infertile, but this is clearly counter to evolutionary advantage. Evolutionists claim that only individuals capable of mating are useful to the species (see above discussion regarding social insects), so menopause should have been selected against by now to give women the best chance for producing the maximum number of offspring. However, several theories have been put forward to explain the apparent paradox. Firstly, that since the risks associated of bearing children increase after a certain age, it is little advantage in running the risk, especially as the mother may already have children that rely on her for survival. Secondly, in terms of groups, the menopause leads to 'post-reproductive grandmothers' who can assist their own offspring with raising their children <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11223885</ref>
# PrP, the gene responsible for the protein implicated in causing prion diseases like [[Creutzfeldt-Jacob_Disease]], has ''no beneficial function''. If evolution were correct, this gene could not persist in the population, but would quickly be selected against.

===Wrong prediction===
# "[T]he loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps" even though "the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/4624/</ref>
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</ref>
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "junk DNA" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one.
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]], which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
# A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.
# '''Where are the human ancestors?''' (That is, the ones that weren't [http://www.conservapedia.com/Piltdown_Man frauds].)

===Paradoxical fossils===
# The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from high tree branches was never true). The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first.<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The long legs of the [[giraffe]]: if a random mutation led to long legs without a long neck or vice versa, the animal would be unable to survive.
# The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
# Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employ a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# Blood clotting is a unique process unlike any other in the body, without which the smallest cut could be life-threatening. Only a fully developed clotting system is functional and therefore could not have evolved through intermediate stages.
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose.

===Uncategorized===
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|251px|right|There is excellent evidence that [[dinosaur]]s and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur#History_of_dinosuars</ref> During a visit to the [[Creation Museum]], the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[PZ Myers]] had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM VIDEO] See also: [[Atheism and obesity]] and [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuvenim/4426093513/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
# There is excellent evidence indicating that [[dinosaurs]] and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur#History_of_dinosuars</ref>
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# [[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# If religion were as harmful as evolutionists claim, natural selection would have phased it out, but it continues, meaning evolutionists are wrong about both evolution and the supposed harmful effects of religion.
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

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

[[category:Evolution]]

Politburo

2011-05-16T18:15:10Z

WilliamB1:

{{merge|Communist Party of the Soviet Union}}
The '''Politburo''' (political bureau) was the highest ruling body in the [[USSR]].<ref>[http://www.encyclopediaproject.net/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev#Early_life_and_political_career]</ref>
It began in 1917 with [[Lenin]], [[Stalin]] and five other men.<ref name="archontology">[http://www.archontology.org/nations/ussr/cpsu/politburo_hist.php]</ref>

* The Politburo was supposed to be subordinate to the Central Committee, and its members were to be elected by Central Committee plenums.<ref name="archontology" /> In Soviet politics, there were three competing centers of power: the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), the Committee for State Security or KGB, and the Soviet Military. The people of the Soviet Union were excluded from participation in the political process and without political rights.

The CPSU dominated political life in the USSR, yet could not govern alone. The KGB, described as "the sword and shield of the Party" controlled the apparatus of the state security police and its Corrective Labor Camps, or Gulags, for dissenters and other persons who may have had some difficulty cooperating with the Soviet regime. The Soviet military, a large force in numbers though not ideologically driven as Party members were, represented the only real threat to Communist domination and control of the Soviet system. Thus KGB also functioned as a counterbalance to keep the the Soviet military in check. The division of power between these bodies ensured that the mass of Soviet people were excluded from any meaningful role in political affairs.

As Soviet [[GRU]] defector [[Victor Suvorov]] has described, the Politburo "should not be seen as the summit of the Party, for it represents neutral territory, on which the three forces gather to grapple with one another." Suvorov gives numerous examples throughout Soviet history how this process functioned; for example the KGB murdered thousands of military leaders in the [[Great Purge]]s of 1938 at the behest of the Party when the loyalty of the military was in doubt. "Both the Army and the KGB are equally represented in the Politburo. With their agreement, the Party takes the leading role; the Party bosses restrain the others and act as peacemakers in the constant squabbles."

Suvorov said of the role of the Politburo in Soviet society, "In effect it has become a substitute for God."

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==Reference==
*Victor Suvorov, ''Inside the Soviet Army'', Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982.
*[http://www.archontology.org/nations/ussr/cpsu/politburo_hist.php USSR: Communist Party: Politburo]

[[category:Soviet Union]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-16T18:13:50Z

WilliamB1: /* Potential Democratic Candidates */

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, when the [[United States]] elects a president. Candidates are expected to file formal papers indicating their interest by July 2011; many were quietly lining up support throughout 2010. The key early primaries are [[Iowa]] ([[caucus]]es), [[New Hampshire]], [[Nevada]] ([[caucus]]es), [[South Carolina]].<ref>The order of the early primaries is not yet finally determined as of the end of 2010. For estimated dates, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> [[Barack Obama approval ratings|
Obama's declining popularity]] has made it more difficult for him to win reelection. [[Liberal]] [[Mike Bloomberg]] might run as an independent, splitting votes with [[Obama]].

For the Republican nomination, a sophisticated set of "[[stalking horse]]" candidates and endorsers are being used, as in 2008 when [[Fred Thompson]] and [[Mike Huckabee]] prevented [[Mitt Romney]] from winning. This time Mitt Romney has [[Rick Santorum]], [[Chris Christie]] and probably [[Tim Pawlenty]] on his side ("[[Team Mitt]]"), while [[Newt Gingrich]] will likely have on his side [[Sarah Palin]] and some pro-life groups, [[neoconservatives]], the [[Fox News Channel]] and [[WSJ]]; [[Mike Huckabee]] will likely endorse Newt also ("[[Team Newt]]").
__NOTOC__
== Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[Fox News]] Exposure
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, business experience, Republican governor of a Democratic state, cut taxes and the deficit, prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner, polling at 40% in the key early primary state of [[New Hampshire]], credited for helping [[Scott Brown]] win an upset victory for the seat long held by [[Ted Kennedy]]. Likely to be endorsed by [[Chris Christie]], [[Trent Lott]], [[Rick Santorum]], [[Marsha Blackburn]], [[Jim Talent]], etc. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref>
|Once supported [[abortion]] rights and [[civil unions]], criticized by the [[Tea Party Express]] chairwoman and others due to his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which included mandatory insurance and taxpayer-funded abortion; struggles in Iowa and won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era, leader in fundraising, likely to obtain endorsement of older "right to life" groups against Mitt;<ref name="April%2525202010%252520Fundraising">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/04/19/sarah-palin-lags-in-2012-fundraising-primary.html</ref> has the [[stalking horses]] of [[Mike Huckabee]] and possibly [[Sarah Palin]] to help him win the nomination.
|Struggled to win reelections in his own congressional district; voted to establish the federal Department of Education as a freshman Congressman, has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]; resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a women 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office; Sarah Palin is suggesting that she may not pull out and this would prevent Newt from defeating Mitt.
|Promoted almost daily by Fox
|-
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Tied for number 1 in [[Gallup Poll]];<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> forced Obama's to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and is also willing to criticize liberal media; has business savvy and resources as a billionaire; is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want. Not a career politician helps his cause.
|Criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. Needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine, <ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> and is starting to look one-dimensional. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is increasingly popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011.
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; she's said she's not running for president this soon<ref name="Bachmann"/> and pulled out of the "Values Voter Summit" ([[Family Research Council]] convention) straw poll in September 2010; has never won statewide office; not picking up strong [[Tea Party]] support, as [[Ron Paul]] did not support her for a House leadership position and did not join her [[Tea Party]] caucus.
|Rarely on Fox anymore, which prefers Palin and especially Newt
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Bush-adviser [[Dick Cheney]] predicts that a Republican will become president in 2012, which would force Jeb to wait until 2020 if he doesn't run now; Jeb is giving interviews as though he were a candidate and can enter the race late and still win the nomination; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; Jeb is less likely to wait for 2016 as [[Obama]]'s approval ratings fall and a Republican victory seems likely in 2012; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]], and sure to win pivotal [[Florida]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Polls unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012, when he could still be tagged with negatives via George; not liked by many Tea Partiers; might wait to run when Hillary runs.
|Rarely appears on Fox
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; has a popular television series and book tour that emphasizes the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality.
|It's difficult to take someone who relies so heavily on [[Facebook]] seriously; even [[liberal]] [[Hollywood]] preferred ''The King's Speech'' at the [[Oscars]]. Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; could merely be a [[stalking horse]] for [[Newt Gingrich]]; lags in fundraising despite publicity,<ref name="April%2525202010%252520Fundraising"/> came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Favorability rating is only 22%, compared to a 48% unfavorable rating.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43265.html</ref> Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and recently many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>
|Promoted heavily by Fox
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|The Republican Party will want this freshman [[U.S. Senator]] in the primary debates, which he's then likely to win because of his charisma, stronger stance on social issues, and [[Tea Party]] appeal; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats.
|Will face the liberal [[double standard]]: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. Some Republican voters may think he's really running to be selected as Vice President.
|Did not seek Palin endorsement; sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand has strong momentum now from his landslide victory, but his dad will likely run again in 2012 while Rand pursues his Senate career. Rand could first campaign for his dad and then become the candidate if voters think he has a better opportunity to win, but time is running our for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Other stations have him on more than Fox does
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]] (but never won with more than 50% of the vote)
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base or any appeal that would attract support away from the front-runners; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure; an ex-Catholic and that may not play well with Catholic swing voters.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Leads [[Barack Obama]] in Zogby's polling (January 2011), takes on the [[public school]] teachers' unions and is a fiscal reformer who puts liberals in their place, has an unscripted style and appearance that is a refreshing alternative to the Teleprompter President.
|Picked a [[pro-abortion]] running mate when he ran for governor, and has little experience with national issues; repeatedly says he is not running; campaigned for [[RINO]] [[Mike Castle]] in [[Delaware]] who was then defeated; neither added [[New Jersey]] to one of the lawsuits against [[ObamaCare]] nor joined an [[amicus brief]] against it; ''will probably support [[Mitt Romney]]''.
|Promoted heavily by Fox
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Former Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem, and apparently is running. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/06/herman-cain-2012-exploratory-committee-could-come-soon/ Herman Cain: 2012 exploratory committee could come soon, DailyCaller, December 6, 2010]</ref>
|Not well known outside the conservative sphere of influence.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Won the [[CPAC]] poll, is strong in national polls, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; opposed Bachmann for a leadership position; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office.
|Excluded by Fox because he opposes the war
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election against a popular opponent, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has a stellar jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states like [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Illinois]], and [[New York]]
|More conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried to force all schoolgirls to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and responded to a reporter's question on Dec. 24, 2010 that he's definitely not running.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|[[Rust Belt]] Governor, effective critic of the Obama administration, being promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], unknown nationally, criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue
|Promoted by Fox; featured first on its "12 for 2012" series.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30% without any way to gain broader support needed to win; could be a [[stalking horse]] for Newt; also supporter of big government, as governor raised taxes and increased state spending, released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; might decide to sit this one out;<ref>CBS: [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20044329-503544.html Signs mount that Huckabee won't enter 2012 race]</ref> supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Promoted by Fox with his own show
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Excluded by Fox
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, and Santorum endorsed Romney for President in 2008; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] for Romney
|Promoted on Fox
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|On Fox because he's been so newsworthy
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Often on Fox
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010
|Not well known yet; says he's not running for president.
|Promoted somewhat by Fox`
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Not well known yet
|Rarely allowed on Fox`
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Rarely allowed on Fox
|-
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|Former [[libertarian]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], he has been recommended by [[Ron Paul]] if Dr. Paul does not run for president; Johnson is a strong advocate of less government.
|Like other libertarians but unlike most Republicans, Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given the likelihood that Ron Paul will run, there is very little potential support for Gary Johnson in this election cycle.
|Excluded by Fox, which opposes libertarians
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|Frequently on Fox
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Has been on Fox; daughter is a commentator for Fox
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Frequently on Fox; both focus on foreign policy
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience.
|Worked in the Obama administration; Criticised the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]]
|Has been on Fox
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]]; was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|Announced in late April 2011 that he is not running; also, rarely seen at conservative conferences, and a Republican from the [[Deep South]] may have trouble attracting independent voters.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich
|Rarely on Fox, but featured in a cover story by the ''Weekly Standard''
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Was often on Fox during 2010 due to Arizona lawsuit
|-
|[[Fred Karger]]
|Wealth of experience in the private sector, much more than Obama ever had. His homosexuality may which may attract some right-leaning liberals.
|Openly gay, which will not play well the majority of the Republican Party. Supports Gay Marriage.
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short-form analysis is that 2012 will be a replay of 2008 with Newt Gingrich trying to play the role of John McCain. Also, Sarah Palin may run along with Mike Huckabee to contest for early primaries before dropping out and endorsing Newt.

The challenge for social conservatives is to run a candidate, such as Marco Rubio, who can capture the large Tea Party and evangelical voting blocs despite the stalking horse candidacies of Palin and Huckabee.

====Long form====
There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It's a chess game for Mitt and Newt to try to emerge from those three as the leader.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-business, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

McClatchy-Marist survey after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur. 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal. The Marist poll says,
{{Cquote|Interestingly, a plurality of Democrats – 42 percent – would like to see a more liberal challenger while half of Democratic leaning independents – 50 percent – would like to see a more conservative one.}}
The McClatchy-Marist poll indicates that 48 percent of registered voters nationwide plan to vote against the president in 2012, with 36 percent saying they'll vote to re-elect Obama.

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives endearing support from the media.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. She has the highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physicians license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Ralph Nader]]
|An experienced [[community organizer]], Nader has not foreclosed the possibility of a challenge. [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/132835--nader-i-am-looking-for-someone-to-challenge-obama-in-2012] Accuses Obama of betraying progressive liberals and being "a con man." [http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/09/ralph-nader-predicts-obama-will-face-democratic-primary-challeng/]
|Could mount Third Party challenge if liberals continue to lose ground in the Democratic party.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Mike Gravel]]
|Former Alaska Senator who attacks his own party.
|Controversial liberal that supports socialist healthcare, gay marriage and called the war in Iraq lost. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/09/gravel-considering-obama-primary-challenge-calls-for-new-911-investigation/ Gravel considering Obama primary challenge, calls for new 9/11 investigation, The Daily Caller, December 9, 2010]</ref>
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacy by Mike Bloomberg ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which he can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world! The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. The more likely result is the he would split the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee.

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2011-05-16T18:12:25Z

WilliamB1: /* Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination */

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, when the [[United States]] elects a president. Candidates are expected to file formal papers indicating their interest by July 2011; many were quietly lining up support throughout 2010. The key early primaries are [[Iowa]] ([[caucus]]es), [[New Hampshire]], [[Nevada]] ([[caucus]]es), [[South Carolina]].<ref>The order of the early primaries is not yet finally determined as of the end of 2010. For estimated dates, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> [[Barack Obama approval ratings|
Obama's declining popularity]] has made it more difficult for him to win reelection. [[Liberal]] [[Mike Bloomberg]] might run as an independent, splitting votes with [[Obama]].

For the Republican nomination, a sophisticated set of "[[stalking horse]]" candidates and endorsers are being used, as in 2008 when [[Fred Thompson]] and [[Mike Huckabee]] prevented [[Mitt Romney]] from winning. This time Mitt Romney has [[Rick Santorum]], [[Chris Christie]] and probably [[Tim Pawlenty]] on his side ("[[Team Mitt]]"), while [[Newt Gingrich]] will likely have on his side [[Sarah Palin]] and some pro-life groups, [[neoconservatives]], the [[Fox News Channel]] and [[WSJ]]; [[Mike Huckabee]] will likely endorse Newt also ("[[Team Newt]]").
__NOTOC__
== Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[Fox News]] Exposure
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, business experience, Republican governor of a Democratic state, cut taxes and the deficit, prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner, polling at 40% in the key early primary state of [[New Hampshire]], credited for helping [[Scott Brown]] win an upset victory for the seat long held by [[Ted Kennedy]]. Likely to be endorsed by [[Chris Christie]], [[Trent Lott]], [[Rick Santorum]], [[Marsha Blackburn]], [[Jim Talent]], etc. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref>
|Once supported [[abortion]] rights and [[civil unions]], criticized by the [[Tea Party Express]] chairwoman and others due to his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which included mandatory insurance and taxpayer-funded abortion; struggles in Iowa and won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era, leader in fundraising, likely to obtain endorsement of older "right to life" groups against Mitt;<ref name="April%2525202010%252520Fundraising">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/04/19/sarah-palin-lags-in-2012-fundraising-primary.html</ref> has the [[stalking horses]] of [[Mike Huckabee]] and possibly [[Sarah Palin]] to help him win the nomination.
|Struggled to win reelections in his own congressional district; voted to establish the federal Department of Education as a freshman Congressman, has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]; resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a women 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office; Sarah Palin is suggesting that she may not pull out and this would prevent Newt from defeating Mitt.
|Promoted almost daily by Fox
|-
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Tied for number 1 in [[Gallup Poll]];<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> forced Obama's to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and is also willing to criticize liberal media; has business savvy and resources as a billionaire; is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want. Not a career politician helps his cause.
|Criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. Needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine, <ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> and is starting to look one-dimensional. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is increasingly popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011.
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; she's said she's not running for president this soon<ref name="Bachmann"/> and pulled out of the "Values Voter Summit" ([[Family Research Council]] convention) straw poll in September 2010; has never won statewide office; not picking up strong [[Tea Party]] support, as [[Ron Paul]] did not support her for a House leadership position and did not join her [[Tea Party]] caucus.
|Rarely on Fox anymore, which prefers Palin and especially Newt
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Bush-adviser [[Dick Cheney]] predicts that a Republican will become president in 2012, which would force Jeb to wait until 2020 if he doesn't run now; Jeb is giving interviews as though he were a candidate and can enter the race late and still win the nomination; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; Jeb is less likely to wait for 2016 as [[Obama]]'s approval ratings fall and a Republican victory seems likely in 2012; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]], and sure to win pivotal [[Florida]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Polls unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012, when he could still be tagged with negatives via George; not liked by many Tea Partiers; might wait to run when Hillary runs.
|Rarely appears on Fox
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; has a popular television series and book tour that emphasizes the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality.
|It's difficult to take someone who relies so heavily on [[Facebook]] seriously; even [[liberal]] [[Hollywood]] preferred ''The King's Speech'' at the [[Oscars]]. Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; could merely be a [[stalking horse]] for [[Newt Gingrich]]; lags in fundraising despite publicity,<ref name="April%2525202010%252520Fundraising"/> came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Favorability rating is only 22%, compared to a 48% unfavorable rating.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43265.html</ref> Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and recently many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>
|Promoted heavily by Fox
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|The Republican Party will want this freshman [[U.S. Senator]] in the primary debates, which he's then likely to win because of his charisma, stronger stance on social issues, and [[Tea Party]] appeal; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats.
|Will face the liberal [[double standard]]: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. Some Republican voters may think he's really running to be selected as Vice President.
|Did not seek Palin endorsement; sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand has strong momentum now from his landslide victory, but his dad will likely run again in 2012 while Rand pursues his Senate career. Rand could first campaign for his dad and then become the candidate if voters think he has a better opportunity to win, but time is running our for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Other stations have him on more than Fox does
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]] (but never won with more than 50% of the vote)
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base or any appeal that would attract support away from the front-runners; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure; an ex-Catholic and that may not play well with Catholic swing voters.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Leads [[Barack Obama]] in Zogby's polling (January 2011), takes on the [[public school]] teachers' unions and is a fiscal reformer who puts liberals in their place, has an unscripted style and appearance that is a refreshing alternative to the Teleprompter President.
|Picked a [[pro-abortion]] running mate when he ran for governor, and has little experience with national issues; repeatedly says he is not running; campaigned for [[RINO]] [[Mike Castle]] in [[Delaware]] who was then defeated; neither added [[New Jersey]] to one of the lawsuits against [[ObamaCare]] nor joined an [[amicus brief]] against it; ''will probably support [[Mitt Romney]]''.
|Promoted heavily by Fox
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Former Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem, and apparently is running. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/06/herman-cain-2012-exploratory-committee-could-come-soon/ Herman Cain: 2012 exploratory committee could come soon, DailyCaller, December 6, 2010]</ref>
|Not well known outside the conservative sphere of influence.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Won the [[CPAC]] poll, is strong in national polls, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; opposed Bachmann for a leadership position; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office.
|Excluded by Fox because he opposes the war
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election against a popular opponent, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has a stellar jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states like [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Illinois]], and [[New York]]
|More conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried to force all schoolgirls to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and responded to a reporter's question on Dec. 24, 2010 that he's definitely not running.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|[[Rust Belt]] Governor, effective critic of the Obama administration, being promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], unknown nationally, criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue
|Promoted by Fox; featured first on its "12 for 2012" series.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30% without any way to gain broader support needed to win; could be a [[stalking horse]] for Newt; also supporter of big government, as governor raised taxes and increased state spending, released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; might decide to sit this one out;<ref>CBS: [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20044329-503544.html Signs mount that Huckabee won't enter 2012 race]</ref> supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Promoted by Fox with his own show
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Excluded by Fox
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, and Santorum endorsed Romney for President in 2008; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] for Romney
|Promoted on Fox
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|On Fox because he's been so newsworthy
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Often on Fox
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010
|Not well known yet; says he's not running for president.
|Promoted somewhat by Fox`
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Not well known yet
|Rarely allowed on Fox`
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Rarely allowed on Fox
|-
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|Former [[libertarian]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], he has been recommended by [[Ron Paul]] if Dr. Paul does not run for president; Johnson is a strong advocate of less government.
|Like other libertarians but unlike most Republicans, Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given the likelihood that Ron Paul will run, there is very little potential support for Gary Johnson in this election cycle.
|Excluded by Fox, which opposes libertarians
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|Frequently on Fox
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Has been on Fox; daughter is a commentator for Fox
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Frequently on Fox; both focus on foreign policy
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience.
|Worked in the Obama administration; Criticised the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Sometimes on Fox
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]]
|Has been on Fox
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]]; was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|Announced in late April 2011 that he is not running; also, rarely seen at conservative conferences, and a Republican from the [[Deep South]] may have trouble attracting independent voters.
|Rarely on Fox
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich
|Rarely on Fox, but featured in a cover story by the ''Weekly Standard''
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Was often on Fox during 2010 due to Arizona lawsuit
|-
|[[Fred Karger]]
|Wealth of experience in the private sector, much more than Obama ever had. His homosexuality may which may attract some right-leaning liberals.
|Openly gay, which will not play well the majority of the Republican Party. Supports Gay Marriage.
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short-form analysis is that 2012 will be a replay of 2008 with Newt Gingrich trying to play the role of John McCain. Also, Sarah Palin may run along with Mike Huckabee to contest for early primaries before dropping out and endorsing Newt.

The challenge for social conservatives is to run a candidate, such as Marco Rubio, who can capture the large Tea Party and evangelical voting blocs despite the stalking horse candidacies of Palin and Huckabee.

====Long form====
There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It's a chess game for Mitt and Newt to try to emerge from those three as the leader.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-business, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

McClatchy-Marist survey after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur. 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal. The Marist poll says,
{{Cquote|Interestingly, a plurality of Democrats – 42 percent – would like to see a more liberal challenger while half of Democratic leaning independents – 50 percent – would like to see a more conservative one.}}
The McClatchy-Marist poll indicates that 48 percent of registered voters nationwide plan to vote against the president in 2012, with 36 percent saying they'll vote to re-elect Obama.

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives endearing support from the media.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Civil, human, and abortion rights activist.
|The Supreme Court overturned a ruling in favor of the [[National Organization for Women]] where NOW obtained more than 25,000 "frequent flyer miles" held by Terry to satisfy a legal judgment.
|Abhorred on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. She has the highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physicians license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Ralph Nader]]
|An experienced [[community organizer]], Nader has not foreclosed the possibility of a challenge. [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/132835--nader-i-am-looking-for-someone-to-challenge-obama-in-2012] Accuses Obama of betraying progressive liberals and being "a con man." [http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/09/ralph-nader-predicts-obama-will-face-democratic-primary-challeng/]
|Could mount Third Party challenge if liberals continue to loose ground in the Democratic party.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Mike Gravel]]
|Former Alaska Senator who attacks his own party.
|Controversial liberal that supports socialist healthcare, gay marriage and called the war in Iraq lost. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/09/gravel-considering-obama-primary-challenge-calls-for-new-911-investigation/ Gravel considering Obama primary challenge, calls for new 9/11 investigation, The Daily Caller, December 9, 2010]</ref>
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacy by Mike Bloomberg ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which he can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world! The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. The more likely result is the he would split the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee.

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-05-16T16:27:02Z

WilliamB1: /* Reversion re: extinction rate */

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive 1|Archive 1]].'''''

----


I'd like to take out the phrase "asserted by atheists" from one of the Astronomy counterexamples, because it is not just atheists who believe in an [[Old Earth]] but also [[Old Earth Creationists]]. Any objections? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:37, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

== Freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young. ==

I'd like to have this point removed: The [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Countering_the_counter_examples|previous discussion]] has shown that it doesn't have any merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

As no one added to the previous discussion, I removed the point. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==

That's as bad as the example of the lakes: it reminds me of stating: ''he cannot be old, all his pimples are recent''. And the given references don't mention any ''extrapolation''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:03, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Great Lakes ==

''The massive [[Great Lakes]] are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago''

That would be only a counterexample, if there were any geologist who thought them to be millions of years old. But it seems to be scientific consensus that these lakes were created during the last great ice age ca. 10,000 years ago. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:07, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Salt Water Lakes ==

''The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]]''

No, it doesn't. It just suggests that [[endorheic]] lakes exist - lakes without an outflow to rivers or the ocean. If such a sea has an inflow, any dissolved material (like salts) will accumulate, while the water just evaporates.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:12, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reply to above 4 comments ==

The 4 comments above are not substantive. In each case, the evidence is that a basic attribute of Earth ''is'' young, and nothing above supports the denial of this fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:No. But they are all counterarguments to the concreteness of your examples. The comments above are all traditionally accepted and easily verifiable scientific theories that offer a more plausible and widely accepted version of what happened than the case you present. Take for example, your point regarding inland saltwater lakes. You make the claim that they can ONLY exist with the aid of a global flood. This is CATEGORICALLY untrue, and demonstrates a dangerous predisposition to jump to conclusions without scientific fact. As mentioned above. The existence of said lakes is attributed to a chemical tendency known as distillation. Water is volatile and salt is not, therefore water evaporates out of the lake until the concentration of salt and other solids is extremely high. You can duplicate this experiment at home by taking a large jug of tap water and allowing it to sit in a hot, bright, dry room for a few weeks. When you return, the tap water will have an extremely high salinity, no ocean water needed.

:Conversely, the claim about a global flood has numerous holes in it. For one, there is no uniform layer of sediment that exists evenly in global geological strata. Such a layer would be inevitable if the world really was entirely submerged for any appreciable period of time. Secondly, and more importantly, there isn't enough water to fill the oceans AND cover the land. A global flood would require that there had once been a lot of water that is no longer present on earth, and this simply can't happen.

:I'm sorry to say, Andy, but YOUR arguments are not substantive.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:02, 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== What's a counterexample? ==

Maybe we have to start with the question above. I think it is reasonable to expect a ''counterexample'' to have some basic properties:

# it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.
# it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a ''Young Earth'' and finally:
# the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.

What are the theories saying? Here are two working definitions...

'''Old Earth''': Since the 18th century, scientist are convinced that the surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time. So, if there is a somewhat widespread geological feature, we expect that we can observe it in all stages of development.

'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped as we find it now by the Great Flood.

So, how do the examples fit in?

: Frank, the style of your remarks reflect a lack of an open mind towards this issue. You state, "Since the 18th century, scientist[s] are convinced ... over long periods of time." This is an historical distortion, and unhelpful to an open-minded discussion even if were true.

: I welcome open-minded discussions, but closed-minded discussions are often a waste of time. So please show some signs of an open mind about this first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

::I'm all for an open-minded discussion, too, and I'm sorry if my previous comment didn't convey this. So, let's drop the historical aspect, and just say:
::*'''Old Earth''': The surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time, and the rate of this change is roughly constant.
::*'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped by the Great Flood a couple of thousands years ago.

::But I hope you can agree with the basic properties (points 1-3 above) a ''counterexample to an Old Earth'' should have?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:46, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Frank, are you trying to refute any of the counterexamples? (In which case please provide some actual evidence) Your closed-minded insistence on causing argument seems pointless. [[User:ArnoldR|ArnoldR]] 08:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them ===
''Fragile natural arches'' exist, as there are always formed new ones. Old natural arches collapse, but [http://www.archmillennium.net/Baby_Arch.htm others] may [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kcb60/level2/lith61.html replace] them. What if there were no natural arches? I don't think that anybody had thought of them then.

=== The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ===
No geologists thinks that these lakes are millions of years old: they were created during the last ice age. Lakes are constantly created (e.g., when rivers change there bed), and happen to perish over time ([[Messel pit]]). Some are older than others ([[Baikal sea]]). The absence of new lakes would be quite puzzling for geologists! And Earth isn't as young as the youngest lake, but much older than the oldest one... (by FrankC)

: The "ice age theory" was a patch to try to explain away the counterexample. The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::It quite a leap to get from ''Great Lakes were created during the last ice age'' to ''all lakes were created during the last ice age''! There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the [[Great Flood]], though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.
::BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::: Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample.

::: As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here:

::::1. it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility.

::::2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally:

:::::No, this is not required, but illustrates a basic flaw in Old-Earth-thinking. Do you think mathematicians accept the validity of a hypothesis as long as no competing hypothesis has been proven? Of course not.

::::3. the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::''implausible ice age theory''? What's implausible about that? It just doesn't fit your YEC preconceptions.
::::::# Yes, I include the requirement of plausibility. What's the point of implausible counterexamples?
::::::# Is there a third theory I haven't heard of? If the Earth isn't young, it is old.
::::::# ''This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates''. No, I'm afraid, that' just obvious common sense.
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:55, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Frank, if you're not going to address my substantive points, then please don't respond. I make a direct analogy to mathematical hypotheses and you ignored it. Do you really think a mathematical hypothesis must be true if there is no proof for the converse?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:16, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::::I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the substantive points, so I try to make myself clearer by using the language of logic. So, let's '''C''' be a counterexample to the Old Earth Theory ('''OET'''). If '''C''' is true, than '''OET''' should be false, that's the first point:
::::::::'''1: ''' '''C ⇒ ~OET'''. If '''C''' is a good counterexample, than this equation should be obvious for everyone.
::::::::I thought the Young Earth Theory ('''YET''') and the Old Earth Theory to be complementary, so ''' YET = ~OET'''. Therefore obviously
::::::::'''2: ''' '''C ⇒ YET'''
::::::::And from ''1'', one gets
::::::::'''3: ''' ''' OET ⇒ ~C'''
::::::::I hope that this straightforward formulation is less confusing than my verbose ''the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. '' I formulated it this way, as all this isn't as ''exact'' as one would wish for: what's an obvious relation for one, needs quite an elaborate explanation for another.

::::::::But now for ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ''. As I said before, OET don't claim that these lakes existed millions of years ago, but are quite recent. You then said : '' The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.'' So, what's your ''counterexample'' now? Do you claim that the OET implies that all lakes are of the same age or were created in the same way? It seems to me that you are saying: ''As there are lakes near the Equator, the Great Lakes are millions of years old - according to OET''. But that's just a [[strawman]], and shouldn't be included in the list.
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood ===
As said earlier, saltwater lakes are explained easily as being [[endorheic]]. If there were no saltwater seas, then the endorheic basins would have to be very unstable, preventing bodies of water to become older than a couple of hundred years. This would imply quite a geologic activity, which we don't observe. But how do these inland saltwater lakes fit within the theory of a ''Young Earth''? Do you imply that the Earth was inundated by a salty ocean for forty days and nights? How could anything survive - and multiply - on this salty ground when the water receded? To explain these lakes with a global flood poses quite a few problems.
So, this ''counterexample'' is especially unconvincing, as it fails all three basic properties...

=== An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age ===
Has anyone done this extrapolation? Without it, the point is moot.

At the moment, the article impresses with the quantity of examples. But the obvious weakness of some examples distracts from other examples which may have some merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lakes again ==

*It was repeatedly explained why the ''Great Lakes'' are no countexample to an Old Earth.
*Aschlafly concluded: ''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample."''
*Aschlafly, could you reformulate the ''counterexample'' in question? Thanks.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:49, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: There are large freshwater lakes near the Equator. Do you think an "Ice Age" formed them also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::To quote myself: ''There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the Great Flood, though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.'' [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:15, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You may quote yourself, but your answer was less than direct. You seem to admit that that the Ice Age did NOT form the large freshwater lakes near the Equator. But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also. That defies explanation consistent with an Old Earth theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Pfft, in the 70's [[Liberal|liberals]] were saying that the earth was cooling. Now, its supposedly warming. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their tune about the "Ice Age" in 40 years.

''But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also.''

I'm afraid that your confidence is misplaced - the examinations and tests of geologists lead to different results. Let's have a closer look - what lakes are we talking about? Near to the equator - say in the strip between 5° North and 5° South - the number of lakes of considerable size isn't big:
*[[South America]]: none
*[[Indonesia]]: '''Lake Toba''' on [[Sumatra]], '''Lake Tempe''' and '''Lake Poso''' on [[Sulawesi]]. Lake Toba is the largest volcanic lake in the world, resulting from an eruption 69,000 - 78,000 years ago. So, it's older (according to the test of geologists) than the last [[Ice Age]], but fairly young on a geological scale. Lake Tempe is a flood plain of an average depth of 5m, so it's quite volatile in geological standards. Lake Poso is a tectonic lake and regarded as ancient (1 - 2 million years).
*[[Africa]]: Here you find the [[African Great Lakes]], in the area of our interest especially, the [[Lake Victoria]], [[Lake Tanganyika]], [[Lake Turkana]], [[Lake Albert]], [[Lake Kivu]], and [[Lake Edward]]. These are located in the [[Great Rift Valley]], which is - according to geologists - a continental rift zone. Though you may call ''Lake Victoria'' young - as it's only 500,000 old and dried out a couple of times, the other lakes are estimated to be roughly 4 million years old.

All of these lakes are older than the American [[Great Lakes]]. So, I repeat my request: please, remove ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '' from the list of counterexamples:
* it is misleading, as ''atheistic geologists'' don't claim that these lakes ''have existed millions of years ago''
* your alternate approach (''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample'') doesn't work neither, as there are ancient (≈ 4 million years) freshwater lakes.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:47, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.

: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::''None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.''
::On the contrary, there is little doubt under geologists that all of the lakes above are not young (with the possible exception of Lake Tempe) . Every textbook on geology will tell you that the oldes of Great African Lakes were formed ≈ 4 mya ago, with Lake Victoria being the youngest of the lot<ref>John Reader, ''Africa'', National Geographic 9/2001</ref>. The [http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0601-09= Toba event] took place ≈ 70,000 years ago.
::''Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.''
::This doesn't make sense. Carbon dating is only used on relatively young (holecenic) freshwater sources. (More in a separate section)
::''I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory?''
::I thought that I've answered this question, too, but I'll elaborate:
::*no, arguing against one theory doesn't defend the other. But both theories can't be true simultaneously - though both could be false. OTOH, there aren't that many concurring theories out there. And entries like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=784643&oldid=784484 this] of your fellow sysop ''Conservative'' show that on this page, Old Earth Theory and Young Earth Theory are put against each other.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? Of course not. The Old Earth theory is disproved by the numerous counterexamples, and creationism is irrelevant to that disproof or a reasoned discussion of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==

What's implausible about it? The article [[Ice Age]] doesn't say anything about plausibility. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:51, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last [[Ice Age]] nor for the [[Great Flood]].

::The creation of the Great Lakes however can be studied by geologists who examined the history of this area. Their surveys paint an interesting picture of the formation of the Great Lakes ([http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/damery1/gl_form.html here] an introduction).

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, you repeatedly reason in an "either-or" manner, as though the only two possibilities are the [[Old Earth]] and your view of [[creationism]]. That's not logical or scientific. Both could be wrong. No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.

::: If the Ice Age theory provided a plausible explanation for the Great Lakes and other observed formations (such as the Mississippi bluffs), then a computer simulation would be easy to build. But it hasn't been done, which suggests that the Ice Age theory is implausible in explaining all that is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::*both could be false, both aren't simulated globally
:::*are you ''confident'' that such a simulation could be easily build? The formation of the Great Lakes has been simulatied - that's something I'm confident of.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:24, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::(Could you please answer to my substantive edits in the previous section? Thanks. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:25, 2 June 2010 (EDT))

:::: Computer simulations would be easy to make. scientists clearly have access to computers. If they're so confident of their "theories" why not make an accurate simulation and add that as proof? I think they know there irratioinal beliefs won't help up to scruteny. FrankC, just have an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:36, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Actually, this PDF contains the results of just such a survey: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V72-48F04CM-26&_user=10&_coverDate=08/20/1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1478705466&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4e83cc89688e873bc3fa1889ab02a7b4&searchtype=a

:::::Andy, and ReligiousRight, I would suggest you both take your own advice on open-mindedness and try to read it.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

:::::And, just as a side note: As a programmer, I can assure you that simulating systems that involve literally millions of variables is about as easy as as it sounds.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages ==

# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

The source doesn't corroborate the claim. The authors of the study seem to be well aware of the limits of [[carbon dating]], and don't try to apply it to pre-Holecene water. And of course, a reservoir can be older than the water it holds (you can't judge the age of the glass by the vintage of the wine!).

Conservapedia's article on [[carbon dating]] highlights the fact that it can't be used to determine ages older than 50,000 years.

nota bene: the source shouldn't be used for ''lakes'' at all: it mentions lakes only in a passing reference to the founder of the science of dating water, Franke and Deevey.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:08, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

<references/>

:"14C dating of the DIC in palaeowater is indispensable for paleohydrological and palaeoclimatologi-
cal reconstructions and for applied hydrogeological studies. Numerical mass-transport modeling
profits from the improvement of hydrogeological conceptions and the revision of boundary condi-
tions. In the case of non-steady-state recharge conditions, maximum and minimum recharge rates in
the past may be estimated from 14C dates of DIC via numerical modeling.

:14C dates measured from DIC enable the determination of regional geohydraulic parameters and
allow water balances to be checked. In most applications, complementary environmental isotope
analyses of hydrogen and oxygen together with general hydrochemical measurements are recom-
mended to facilitate a comprehensive and thorough interpretation of the 14C dates (Cark and Fritz
1997).

:A primary task towards a significant improvement in the applied 14C dating of groundwater remains
with the development of procedures that will enable 14C activities measured from DIC to be confi-
dently included in the calibration of finite-element and compartmental modeling exercises."

:This is a quote from the conclusion of the paper Andy cited to make his point about C-14 testing. In short, the conclusion says that it is necessary to further develop C-14 testing for dissolved carbons so as to improve our understanding of paleohydrology. The paper never makes concrete assertions about the "age" of the water, just suggestions for a method of testing the organic mater in water to help determine the age of isolated aquifers (NOT LAKES, which would have inconsistent levels due to evaporation and run-off.

:Andy, please start showing more discretion with the scope of your claims, and present better evidence. Bad arguments are a detraction from the integrity of this site, and your posts only end up hurting our argument.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:43 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Answer to Aschlafy ==

You asked: ''You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? ''

I don't think that the reason for the Old Earth theory to be true is that Young Earth creationism is false. But even if I followed the insinuated reasoning above, that shouldn't influence the topic of our discussion: ''counterexamples to an Old Earth''. On this talkpage, I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these counterexamples.

Just for an analogy. Often, you hear criticism of the infallibility of the Bible phrased as questions like ''Whom did Cain marry?'' ''What's the value of π according to 1 Kings 7:23?''. These questions can be phrased as ''counterexamples to Biblical inerrancy'':

*Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.

*The circumference and the diameter of a bronze vessel are given as 30 units and 10 units. Therefore, the Bible claims that π equals 3.

Are these valid ''counterexamples''? Would someone using these examples in a discussion impress his dialog partners? No , of course not! The first one makes a claim (''there were no other people'' - Adam and Eve had other children!) not made in the Bible - therefore erecting a straw-man, the second one talks about the features of a special object: maybe there was a brim? And ''3''' ''is'' an approximation for π.... a These so-called ''counterexamples'' are easily explained within the Biblical framework, and anyone using them shows just his ignorance in these matters. Therefore, repeating them and ignoring the given explanation is just a Mantric exercise for those who chose not to face reality: I hope that we can agree that these ''counterexamples'' are weak, and their weakness can be seen be everyone - believing in Biblical inerrancy or not.

I'm afraid that the same must be said about some of the ''counterexamples to an Old Earth'': the most impressive about them is their number. But the individual examples tend to be quite weak. What happens to a pupil using them in a discussion with his fellow students - or his teacher? He will be faced with further questions and explanations. For instance, look at:

*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago

Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.

To prevent this, you should perhaps elaborate the examples, and give refutations for the explanations of geologists.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:What if we assume that geologists really do think that the Great Lakes were made by icebergs 10,000 years ago instead of 10,000,000? There is still no proof of this, not even a computer model (which I assure you could be easily done). Your argument is much ado about nothing. [[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 14:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::See my post responding to this topic earlier. The model is there in the link. Other proof includes any of the numerous geological surveys that can be found by googling the topic in google scholar. Also, "much ado about nothing" is taken from Shakespearian slang for sex crazed. I find the assertion that Frank is a sex addict just because you disagree with him to be insulting.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:49 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Observations on some deceitful points in this article ==

Hi. I'm new here after finding this site from a google search on abortion. I also came across this, um, peculiar article. I looked at some of the facts presented and it looks deliberately misleading:

*For example, because freshwater lakes appear to be "young" (subjective term but we'll go with it) has no indication on the age of the earth.

*The earth's magnetic field is indeed declining, but when I go to that NASA site, in the ''same, exact'' paragraph, it says:

{{Cquote|There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million years according to geological evidence. The time between reversals seems to be growing longer, and is currently about 300,000 years or so. The last one of these happened about 770,000 years ago (0.77 on the graph). We are currently living during a period that has been called the Brunhes Magnetic Chron when the South Magnetic Pole is in the Northern Hemisphere. During the previous Matumaya Magnetic Chron, the North Magnetic Pole was in the Northern Hemisphere! Note that, from the polarity figure, at a time 0.94 million years ago (940,000 years ago) the magnetic field reverse itself by going nearly to 'zero' but then after a few thousand years it recovered and began to increase in strength. During the next 150,000 years it rose to a maximum strength and then began to decline. Notice, also, how fast the magnetic field recovers after it reaches 'zero', in some cases much less than 10,000 years.}}

.. but then the article has:

''Presently, Earth's magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. ... Not comparable to an old earth''

Kind of deceptive and misleading, if not blatantly lying, no?

Thanks for your feedback, [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 15:45, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

===Another observation===
Religulous Right [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=786079&oldid=786069 undid] an edit of mine, so I'll explain why I removed it. First off, it's highly speculative and opinionated to an individual:
*Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.
*Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth. Thanks [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:21, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
: I realize you're new here. However, you can't just walk into somebody's living room and strart deleting their work because you don't approve of it. Either you make your case here or contribute to the project with material before you start deleting stuff. If all new useres starting deleting everything they didn't like we would end up with no material. Also, if you didn't notice, there were four footnotes in the section you deleted. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:47, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::I made my case above, did you not read it? [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:50, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Hopefully I can address a few of your concerns here, Douglas.
:::*''Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.'' The only data I could find on this statement is [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/26/sat here], which does show a slow and steady decline within the past five years of critical reading skills, while mathematics has stayed steady the past three years. The average high school student's SAT score, given the data, has dropped, though I concede that there is perhaps not enough data to make a definitive statement on the matter.
:::*''Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth.'' Style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence, but linguistics and grammar do. The spoken word has become—for lack of a better word (heh)—lazy due to either lost interest in proper spoken word or lack of mental ability to comprehend and utilize it. I believe that one's speech capabilities are intertwined with how intelligent he is.
:::In the future, please wait for someone to address your points before making changes to a sensitive article. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:05, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Yes. However, I'm saying make your case BEFORE you start deleting points that could possibly be great insights. We don't want to be engaging in [[Liberal censorship]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for the aid, RR, but this user has been politely removed from the site. He may return in three days. Until then, RR, may I suggest you do something more productive than bicker with liberals on talk pages? I understand they are infuriating, but trust me, us admins have got it under control. Nothing gets by us. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 20:03, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
I didn't realize he was a liberal. I thought he just may have been a deluded conservative. Even they make me very angry! But you're right. I'll do something more productive. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 20:09, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::''Administrators'', RR, will offer instruction to other users, not other editors. Is that clear? I am disturbed by the continual similarities in your observations and those of past users we eventually found not to be of good intentions. Jacob's suggestion for you if far more polite than any I would offer at this moment, as I would have blocked you both for two days. While your contributions are appreciated the same as anyone else editing here, refrain from emulating other editors style, especially administrators, and completely refrain from bombast and unsupported statements, RR. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:38, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

== Sources ==

The sources for some of the ''counterexamples'' highlight their weaknesses:
* [http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."] is a broken link. I couldn't find the actual article. When stating sources, it is helpful (and add to their credibility) if basic information is given, like the date of the publishing, the name of the author, etc.
* [http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"] this source doesn't say anything about the age of the galaxy
* http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0 is a hint to the review from some Portuguese guy whoe writes about the book ''The Young Earth''. I commented this one out as the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] state ''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others.''
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:38, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

*I get an error for http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 , too
The reinsertion of the link I took out is somewhat surprising. Could someone define what is to be understood by an ''authoritative work''? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:19, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:: Frank, your comments are nit-picky stuff. This is a site for the open-minded, earnest search for the truth. A galaxy spinning in a direction opposite to its tail confounds old earth theories, and that problem is not to be dismissed because a reporter didn't fully address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:22, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Where are you getting this information, Andy? You shoot down other's intuition and demand fact when people oppose you, but you refuse to offer fact, when you've been backed into a corner. That isn't fair. intuition doesn't make an argument. You need REAL sources for these assertions. It isn't nit-picky to say that the links you provide for most citations DO NOT remotely support your point. [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:54 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Newsweek ==

I couldn't find the article in ''newsweek'' - some censorship on their part? I reread the somewhat bizarre discussion in the [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Instability_of_the_Solar_System|archived talk page]] of this article, and [http://www.google.de/#hl=en&q=%22the+planetary+orbits+will+indeed+become+chaotic%2C%22+laughlin&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=b52ff5a993c4ca35 googling] for the quote ''But the chances of orbits changing with less-than-catastrophic results are greater, notes Laughlin: "the planetary orbits will indeed become chaotic," with "the time required for chaos to significantly degrade the predictability of a system [on] the order of 5 million years."'', I came up with this article on [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/459781a.html Nature]. But the conclusion of this article is somewhat the opposite of the statement made here, as it's abstract states:

''Simulations show that orbital chaos can lead to collisions between Earth and the inner planets. But Einstein's tweaks to Newton's theory of gravity render these ruinous outcomes unlikely in the next few billion years.''

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

: Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:27, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::The quote above wasn't from some ''reporter'', but made by Gregory Laughlin (Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California), while your counterexample seems to be based on conclusion of the reporter of Newsweek. The factual information can be found here: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] and can be summarized as: yes such collisional trajectories exist, but they are even more improbable than thought earlier. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:34, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:12, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::::You give excellent advice: ''Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased''. As I stated above, I couldn't find the piece in ''Newsweek'' anymore. You are aware that reporters of popular magazines tend to prefer a sensational headline over a more level-headed one, i.e. ''doom incoming!'' over ''scientists say incoming doom unlikely''.
::::Fortunately, the very articles the Newsweek's journalist wrote about are still available, and I linked to them in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Here, you find the factual information, summarized by Gregory Laughlin:
::::'''Their [i.e. J. Laskar's & M. Gastineau's] work shows that the orbits of the terrestrial planets -- Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars -- have a roughly 99% chance of maintaining their current, well-ordered clockwork for the roughly 5 billion years that remain before the Sun evolves into a red giant and engulfs the inner Solar System''''''
::::Getting from this to ''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' or ''The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual'' is quite surprising.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:50, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

== Receding Moon ==

''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago ''

What's ''too close''? [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html According to NASA], the current rate is 3.8 cm/year<ref>[http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994.)</ref>. If we assume that this rate is constant, than it gained over the last billion years:

'''1,000,000,000 year × 3.8cm/year = 3,800,000,000cm = 38,000,000m = 38,000km'''

That roughly 10% of the current mean orbital radius of the [[Moon]] of 378,000km!

But the [[Roche limit]] of the system Earth-Moon is 18,000km - even 5 billion years ago the moon would not have been within this critical region.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

: 10% off the mean is a huge difference, which would have many dire effects. Note that it is bigger than 10% with respect to the closest distance. Have you looked into that? Also, Old Earth believers claim the age is far older than 1 billion years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== Pattern ==

*''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago '': that is wrong, a billion years ago, there was no problem with the Moon's orbit, even at the current rate of receding.
*''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '': that is deceptive, as geologists don't claim that the Great Lakes existed millions of years ago.
*''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' That is misleading, as they probability that the solar system maintains stable is 99%.

What is to be achieved by massing up a great number of flawed statements?
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:31, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:I've addressed your first point in the section above. Your second point does not rebut the truth of the statement. The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it. Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative. The solar system is unstable, and that is undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:12, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::''The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it.'' Science isn't about the public misconceptions of a theory, but the theory itself.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:33, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

== Links ==
<references />

== Strontium Isotopes ==

The concentration of strontium isotopes in seawater is fluctuating - and the concentration at various times is well known (and tabled). ''Long-term erosion'' is not the only cause of changing concentrations (e.g, have a look [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989AREPS..17..141V here]), so the assumption of a monotonous process is overly simplistic.

For short: not a good example, neither.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:49, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

:I added a fact tag, as there doesn't seem to be a source to back up the claim made in this ''counterexample''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:08, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Speculations ==

Dear Andy,
above, you write ''Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative.'' No, it is not - as the quoted article states, the probabilities are calculated using the best current models and the best simulations. So, ''purely speculative'' doesn't fit this point at all!

OTOH, I have to read: ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that.'' '''Colliding with the Earth before that'''? Have you done any calculation? Made a simple simulation? I doubt it! In fact, a simple back-of-an-envelope calculation would have shown that the Moon was far from ''colliding'' - even making the assumption of a constant rate of recession!

I'm prone to erase this speculative (or better. factually incorrect) statement, but I don't want to be accused of ''censorship''. Therefore, I just added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-tag, giving you the possibility to back up this sentence with ''facts''.

I'll do the same for the for the entry ''An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.'', as I couldn't find such an extrapolation anywhere, especially not in the given source.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:16, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

: Frank, your comments are longwinded, but did you respond to the defect in your comparison of the distance that Moon recedes to its mean distance from the Earth? Obviously the relevant comparison is to the closest distance of the Moon to the Earth. Please respond to that relevant issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:35, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

::*Assuming a constant rate of recession, I get the following values:
:::{|
|Recession of the Moon over one billion years (assuming a constant rate)||''' 38,000km'''
|-
|Current mean orbital radius:||'''378,000km'''
|-
|Current perigee:||'''363,000km'''
|}
::So, a billion years ago, the [[Moon]] would have been 10.05% (mean orbital radius) or 10.47% (closest distance) nearer to the Earth than it is now. Yes, there are consequence of such a closer distance (e.g., more and greater tidal movements), but I doubt that simple multicellular ocean-based life-forms would bother, so this isn't that relevant, is it?
::*Now, could you address the following problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::*JacobB deleted the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags I added to the two statements above without any further comment (or indeed coming up with sources/calculations/simulations). As he obviously doesn't like when comments of a sysop are reversed, I refrain from doing so. But I do think that these was the perfect place to insert such tags, as
:::#The statements aren't obvious, as they involve estimations and calculations
:::#I did research, and couldn't find any source to back up the claims
:::#In fact, according to my own estimations, these statements are wrong
:::#I stated the reasons for inserting the tags above
:::So, please, back up the statements, or reinsert the tags (hoping that someone else comes up with an explanation), or just delete the statements.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Solar Fusion ==

''The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.''

Could someone add some numbers to this? For me, it sounds just wrong, and I couldn't find any source for it. It's something different from the [[Faint young Sun problem]], I suppose. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:02, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

:http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/sun/sun-chapter5.html

:This article explains the life of the sun so far, with some great equations that explain the rate of H and He depletion in the solar fusion reaction. As you can see, the math supports a sun of at least 4.5 billion years old, with a life span that will extend for another 5 to 10 billion years.

:No doubt, Andy will chastise me for posting this, and demand that i be more open minded (ie. believe only what he believes and disregard "liberally biased math" in favor of the more biblically friendly "no real evidence at all")

== Geothermal Activity ==

''The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.''

Why not? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Questionable Probabilities ==

''If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here (as of June 28, 2010) has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with 93% probability.''

This seems to be modeled after [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]:

''Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that), then the odds that these counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is infinitesimally small (only a 6% chance that evolution is true with 54 possible counterexamples).''

There are quite a few problems with these statements:
*Why 10% in the first case, but only 5% in the second? Is it that otherwise these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with probability of 72% - and that value isn't convincing enough?
*Where do these probabilities come from? Is there a source which utters statements of which one in ten (or one in twenty) is correct?
*To assume that all these counterexamples are '''independent''' is ''very'' problematic!
*Generally, these counterexamples don't make predictions about unknowns, so, the validity of a statement like ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that'' can be calculated at this very moment: The probability that this counterexample is correct is ''zero'' as the statement is wrong.

I won't delete these ''"calculations"'', but I'll add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags to give the authors (or others) the opportunity to state their lines of reasoning: So, why are these probabilities reasonable estimates, and why are the ''odds far higher than that'' resp. why are these ''underestimates''?

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:03, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

: The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful. It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect. A number of 50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%. Regardless, the point is clear and educational.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:04, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

::*''The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful.'' Helpful for what?
::*''It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect.'' Stating probabilities like '''6%''' or '''93%''' is a claim to be precise. Getting such precise numbers by putting together some very rough estimates (''50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%'') isn't good statistical practice.
::*''Regardless, the point is clear and educational.'' What's the educational purpose of this point: ''add percentages to your statements because that sounds scientific'' ?
::*Above, I answered to your question on perigee vs. mean radius. Could you please address my problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::Thanks, [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind. If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it. But we're not going to censor the point itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::''Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. '' No, it's a ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia''. That's why I'm not posing random questions, but I'm questioning dubious and unsourced statements. I'm not doing so frivolously, but only after checking into the statements myself. As you made these statements, you should either be able to give the necessary calculations/estimations/simulations to affirm them, or you should '''delete''' these questionable counterexamples. To paraphrase one of your comments: '''Please respond to these relevant issues''' - as you expect us to answer your questions...
::::''The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind.'' I'm sorry but I'm getting the idea that this is a scatter-shot approach where most of the projectiles are expect to miss...
::::''If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it.'' No, I've no better way of stating it, as I don't think it can be stated correctly. May I add that deleting a wrong point from an ecyclopedia isn't censorship, but just due editorial process?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:29, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: No, Frank, you're challenging a mathematical truth here. We welcome suggestions on explaining truths better. [[Censorship]] is not welcome here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::*I don't doubt the mathematical truth that 1-0.925 ~ 0.93, but I doubt that this model is applicable. That's a difference.
::::::*Above, you asked me a question. I answered it - obviously satisfactorily, as there was no follow-up question of you. Now, I asked you two questions. Could you please try to answer them?
:::::::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::::::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::::::*The counterexamples concerned by these questions aren't self-evident, and the first statement seems to be plainly wrong to me. If you fail to address these problems, if any query for additional information (i.e., the <nowiki>{{fact]]</nowiki>-tags) is removed, you give the impression that the only reason for these examples to be included in the list is that you just like them. Is this sufficient for an encyclopedia?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:59, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
* The Earth-Moon collision is not a statemente about a future fact, but a statement about a past event. ''Given the current models'' of tidal friction, and extrapolating backwards ''ceteris paribus'', the Earth-Moon ''would have'' collided (or, being as close as you wish) about 109 years ago. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:23, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
** Or, more precisely, about 2 x 109 years ago, according to "Lunar nodal tide and distance to the Moon during the Precambrian", J.C.G. Walker, K.J. Zahnle - Nature, 1986. There may be other theories (even negating this); I found that using Google Academic with "tidal friction earth moon collision". [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:36, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:: Severe problems from the moon being in close proximity to the earth would arise well before the 2 billion years you cite.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

The [[Christian apologetics|evidence for Christianity and the Bible is extremely strong]] and Bible exegesis does not support an old earth and that is why traditional Judaism and most of the early Church fathers who spoke on the issue believe in a young earth. Plus, there is [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth plenty of evidence for a young earth.] The probability for an old earth is zero. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:20, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to evidence for a young earth has some interesting examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
:: Interesting but totally unscientific I'm afraid. And illogical. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:35, 12 February 2011 (EST)

::: I wonder what your score, "Darkmind", would be on an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openmindedness test]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:11, 12 February 2011 (EST)

== Dissipation of Underground Well Water ==

I was wondering if anyone has more information or explanation about the counterexample, "The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time." This is a very intriguing counterexample, but I don't quite understand it based on my understanding of entropy (from a classical thermodynamics perspective) and I could not find any supporting sources. Also, "high concentrations of underground well water" seems either vague or imprecisely worded (does this mean high ''volumes'', or is it high concentrations within a geographic area...). Thanks. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 15:21, 15 February 2011 (EST)
:As I understand it, all things tend to disorder over time. If the atheistic belief of a billions of years old earth were true, this water would have long since lost its order and would now be in a completely random, disordered state. This is clearly not the case and once again the evolutionists are proven wrong. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 15:37, 15 February 2011 (EST)
::OK, so it seems like we could expect any matter that is billions of years old to be in a completely random, disordered state by now. Maybe this counterexample doesn't need to refer specifically to underground well water. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 16:25, 15 February 2011 (EST)

:::The example of water is particularly striking. If I see a bucket full of water in a desert, then I can infer it has not been there more than a day or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:03, 15 February 2011 (EST)

== Merging of some counterexamples? ==

First of all I would like to thank the authors for your counterexamples. I allway accepted the Old Earth Theory, without thinking too much about it. This article has certainly given me some new perspectives.
But: I think quite a few of the counterexamples could be merged together. For instance: In Astronomy: Counterexample nr. 1 and nr. 6 say basically the same thing: the moons orbit is unstable, thus it could not have existed billions of years before, since it would have collided with the earth.
The same goes for counterexamples nr. 2 and 4. The basic statement is: spiral galaxies are rather young.
Similar redundancy can be seen in the Geology section.
I think it would improve the article if there were fewer counterexamples, that state basically the same thing. But that's just my two cents.
À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:54, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

: I looked at 1 and 6, and also 2 and 4, and each make different, distinct points. One could also complain about my use of "different, distinct" in my prior sentence as being somewhat redundant too, I suppose! But those adjectives convey individual meaning also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:: Thank you for your quick response. After rereading the different examples, I agree. They are different. So "redundant" was certainly the wrong expression (since English is not my first language, such imprecisions unfortunately occur...). But the examples are still similar to each other, producing (at least for me) a feeling of déja vu. What concerns me is that said déja vus kinda downplay the great new insights this article offers. They reduce the "newness" of the presented information. That's why I would suggest that for instance examples 1 and 6 be merged to something like this:
::''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the moon being as they are today. The Moon's orbit is '''also''' becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stabilit. '''Thus further disproving the theory of an Old Earth'''''
::It's just a minor formal change although I think it would improve the reading experience. À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 16:05, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, your suggestion is a good one, although it seems to require combining two separate problems into one. But both concern the Moon, so please combine them as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::::Done. I hope it is to your liking. If I have more time I might take a look at some other examples that could be merged. But I think I'll rather look at some history and/or literature articles fisrt. If I do find more potential mergers, I will of course discuss them here first. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 17:17, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

== Articles like this one Reflect Poorly on Conservapedia ==

I completely sympathize with using science to back up the idea of a young Earth, but much of what is posted here is, from any geologists standpoint, silly. I could have answered any of these problems after only my first course or two at university. I work as a research scientist at NASA and I have two degrees in geology and planetary science, and will be going back to school in the fall for my PhD. Prior to NASA I was a researcher at the SETI Institute. Although my main focus the surface of Mars (I am one of the geologists on the Mars Exploration Rover [Spirit and Opportunity] team), I have also spent years studying the Earth, so I know a little bit of what I am talking about.

I appreciate the concept of Conservapedia, as it is indeed true that the majority of Wikipedia users are indeed on the more liberal side of the fence. However, for Conservapedia to be respected as a true source of learning, it is important that it get its facts straight.

My main worry in articles such as this one (and the relativity and evolution ones) is that they really mislead students in what scientists actually know and understand. From what I can tell, many of the members on CP are students. If one of these students were to become enrolled in ANY accredited geology program, they would be in for quite a shock.

I just want to be clear, my aim here is not to disprove the idea of a young Earth as described in Genesis. My goal is to alert the reader that these “counterexamples” have mostly been solved (some were answered decades ago). Communication between scientists and the general public is often poor, and the result is people not being aware of the great discoveries that bright minds are making. I have taken the time to critique the “Counterexamples to an Old Earth” page. I am very tempted to attempt to critique the “Counterexamples to Evolution” and “Counterexamples to Relativity” pages, but as a geologist those fields are not my expertise, and I would not want to elaborate on a subject which I do not fully understand.

Virtually everything I am elaborating on here comes from dozens of courses and experience I have in this field, and as a result I used very few citations. I (along with any other geologist I know) could have answered at least 90% these counterexamples after their first year of university courses in the Earth sciences. If anyone has any questions about specific points I make I would be more than happy to look up and direct you to the relevant literature.

So here we go…

First of all, it does not take only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. “Old Earth” is not written down as doctrination as if it were a religious text (this is also true for evolution and relativity). The ideas that make up the old earth “theory” have changed drastically over time, even over the past few decades. For example, plate tectonics was not discovered until the 1970s, yet today form the main basis for how we understand how the way the Earth has evolved. The same goes with the significant role impacts have in changing global processes.

The beauty of science is that nothing is ever 100% true. Just because one portion of a theory fails doesn’t make the entire thing false. It just means that there is far more work to do in the field, meaning students still have plenty of opportunities when they finish university.

Now onto the “counterexamples”:

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

Geology

1. The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them[6].

These arches have not existed since the Earth’s creation. They have been forming over billions of years, and some collapsed while other haven’t.

2. An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches[7] with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.

See above.

3. The massive Great Lakes and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume.

There are no major lakes near the equator (other than Lake Victoria, if that meets your definition of a “great lake”)(this could have to do with the fact that most major landmasses are in the Northern hemisphere). Most large lakes did not exist even tens of thousands of years ago due to the last ice age. One of the reasons these lakes are draining is due to glacial rebound (the Earth’s surface is rising since the weight from the overlying glacier has been removed. This is the same process responsible for isostacy)

4. The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood.

Simply put, no. All lakes that are saline have no outflows. They are salty for the same reason the ocean is. Salt (and other minerals) can flow in, but the only way out is through evaporation. This is why Mono Lake, the Great Salt Lake, and the Dead Sea are salty, while the Great Lakes (and most other lakes) are not. It is not a coincidence that all salty lakes have no outflows.

5. The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time.

Aquifers are replenished from precipitation. A good percentage (almost a third) of rainwater percolates into the ground and refills underground water sources)

6. The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.

Actually, underground water is a muddy slurry prior to being cleaned. Anybody who dug a hole in their backyard would not find water that looked like it came from a faucet. Also, nobody has said that specific aquifers existed for millions of years. I suppose its theoretically possible that some may have, but many others have been around for thousands or tens of thousands of years.

7. Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation every century; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation[8]

Where is the source for this? The rotation of the Earth does change, but what is the level that is deemed necessary for “destabilization.” Unless one knows what is required for destabilization, this point is useless.

8. The lack of erosion between rock layers[9][10].

If there were signs of erosion, it would not be a layer. Heres an experiment: In a clear glass, place a layer of salt, a layer of chocolate powder, a layer of flour, and a layer of Gatorade mix (or any 4 different color powders). Notice the layers. Now put them in the same glass while you simulate erosion by constantly mixing the top layer of the powder.

There are many places where you don’t see layers. This would have happened during chaotic times of deposition (or times without deposition).

9. Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water procedes through the water cycle it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.

No. The water that gets evaporated out of the ocean is very close to pure water (other than trace elements with which it interacts with in the atmosphere). Therefore freshwater reserves are constantly re-supplied by a fresh clean source: precipitation. Also, most “contamination” in ocean water is due to human pollution, and this has only been significant for the past several hundred years.

10. Paraconformity and unconformity such as that seen at the Grand Canyon disprove the uniformitarian view of earth history.

No geologist believes in a 100% uniformitarian view of earth history, just as no geologist believes that everything happens catastrophically. Overall, things go slow and take time, but there are catastrophic events that disrupt this (i.e.: your Grand Canyon “examples”, major impacts like the one htat killed that dinosaurs, volcanic eruptions)

11. All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,[11] and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

If one is going to acknowledge that isotope data can be used to reliably date things, then they must use it in its entirety. You cant pick and choose when isotope dating is valid and when it is not. There is plenty of isotope data that suggests that the Earth is billions of years old, so why is isotope data acceptable when it argues for a young Earth but not for an old one?

12. The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago![Citation Needed]

I do not know much about strontium samples in water, but I would like to see the source for this data. See the previous response regarding isotope ages. In addition, many minerals that enter the ocean are recycled through seafloor movement and subduction. The seafloor moves away from underwater volcanic chains and into trenches, where it is recycled into the Earth’s mantle.

13. The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.[Citation Needed]

No. The half-life of Uranium 238 is 4.47 billion years. Some elements take even longer to decay. In addition, much of this heat stays in the Earth due to the convection in the outer core and within the lower mantle.

Also, a good amount of the initial heat within the Earth came from the Earth’s accretion (i.e. many separate impacts that eventually formed the Earth). Even before radiation was understood, scientists such as Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the Earth to be about 100 million years with this method. He was obviously wrong, because radiation had not yet been discovered and he could not incorporate radioactive heating into his calculations.

Most of these geology counterexamples are just arguing for a short timespan of individual features (lakes, archs, etc). This is akin to an elderly man getting a pimple, and one declaring, “well the pimple is only a week old, so the man must be only a week old as well!” A tad bit ludicrous, don’t you think?

Biology

All of these are more so counter-examples to evolution rather than an old Earth. I would debate that page as well, but as a geologist I will stick to the things on which I consider myself to understand thoroughly.

1. The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[12] music, personal letters,[13] quality of political debates,[14] the quality of news articles,[15] or any other measure.

Nobody would disagree that the average human today is far more intelligent than one living in the Dark Ages.

If this was true, it is completely irrelevant to the age of the Earth. Humans have been around for less than .05% of the age of the Earth. As fantastic as we like to think we are, humans are pretty insignificant to the overall history of the planet.

2. The age of onset of sexual maturity is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.[16]

Once again, this is absolutely irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

3. The high observed rate of extinctions of species[17] and harmful genetic mutations suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.

The high rate of species extinction is mostly due to humans killing them off.

4. The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying (CNN's Anderson Cooper began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);[18] many celebrities (such as American Idol winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)[18] and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)[19] increasingly experience premature graying or balding.

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth. Actually, this kind of seems irrelevant to age og the human race as well. Gray hair could be due to a number of environmental factors, or the fact that humans are much less physically active than we used to be.

5. The age of onset of cancer is markedly decreasing,[20] suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

6. 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 fossils that have been dated to be hundreds of millions of years old. There are also tree rings which have been dated to be 11,000 years old.

7. The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.

Dogs were tamed by humans from wolves, in a similar way we tamed cattle, sheep, and pigs. This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

8. Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[21]

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

9. Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.

Many things died during mass extinction events, but life still continues.

All of this about evolution is completely irrelevant to the Earth’s age. When one talks about the Earth, they are talking about the rock we stand on and what lies beneath, not the plants and animals on the surface. Most geologists couldn’t care less about living organisms, usually they just get in the way when we are trying to get a good view of a rock outcrop.

So there you go. I apologize for using the matter-of-fact tone of voice throughout this. I am used to writing scientific papers where one writes the facts and refutes what they are attempting to disprove without concern for what the reader may be feeling.

Again, I am not trying to disprove Genesis. I just want to help the students using this website to have a better idea of what us geologists think we know about the Earth.

On another note (to all sysops), I am very aware that this very lengthy entry puts me in a major violation of the 90/10 rule. I just became active on CP, and will be adding actual entries to the encyclopedia as I have the time to contribute.[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:29, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuttal ==

Rebuttal is indented below:
::My clarifications do your rebuttals are double indented -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

:The lunar landing disproved the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth, or collided with it: the composition of Moon lacks the iron prevalent on the Earth. In addition, the orbit has to be explained. Extrapolate back from current observations, and the Moon was too close too quickly.

::Actually, I'm glad you brought that up, I forgot to mention it. The lack of iron is a great piece of evidence for a collision-caused formation! Its believed that most of the iron on the Earth (the huge majority of it) is at our planet's core. The proposed impact would have stripped the Earth's iron-poor mantle but left the core intact. Furthermore, the massive amount of energy deposited would have left the moon as a molten sphere, wherein most of the iron would sink, as it is among the heaviest common elements.

::Im not really sure where you came up with that the lunar landing disproved this theory, when in fact it actually provided a lot of evidence for it. The moon and Earth were found to have near identical isotope signatures, whereas nearly every other body in the solar system (Mars, Vesta, the Centaurs, etc) have very different compositions.

::Extrapolating from current observations is easy, and it provides further evidence for an old Earth. The Moon is receding from the Earth at about 3.8cm/year. (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html). The Earth Moon average distance is ~385000km. Simply divide one into the other and you get a time of ~10billion years. Which is within the same order of magnitude as the time of Earth/solar system formation. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

:In other words, it's a counterexample but maybe there is some unobserved material that might explain it. Believe what you like, but that's not empirical science.

::I'll admit, I know very close to nothing about "dark matter" and "dark energy." Like i said, Im a geologist, not an astrophysicist. From what I understand, nobody really understands what either of these things are. I definitely agree with you that there is most definitely no empirical evidence (that Im aware of, at least). BUT, I don't see where the evidence is that spiral galaxies are young. It seems like quite an extraordinary claim to say that ALL spiral galaxies appear young (I dont even know what is meant by young, does that mean thousands, millions, or billions of years old?), and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

:"If our solar system were unstable" AND IF VERY OLD, THEN "we wouldn't be here." Precisely.

::I don't understand your point. Just because something has a possibility of becoming unstable does not mean that it has to happen. Given that there are at least 10^22 stars in the universe (100 billion stars per galaxy times 150 billion galaxies, both of which are very conservative numbers), there could have been millions of solar systems just like ours but became unstable and failed. Ours just so happens to be one that turned out fine. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be here right now debating its origins. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

:No, the "billions and billions" type of argument doesn't help. But that fallacious argument permeates much of the old earth "logic".

::Why not? You failed to provide a reason. It does permeate much of the old Earth "logic", because the Universe is a very, very, very, big place, with billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, many of which have planets. We are one of many (see above) solar systems and locations where life may exist. I think that this is the root problem that many young-Earther-ers have with the concept of an old Earth. The number of possible locations for life in the universe is huge. We (as in organisms on Earth) just so happened to make it through near impossible odds to continue to survive today. Statistically speaking, life likely does exist somewhere else in the universe (and who knows, maybe beings there are having a debate similar to ours right now!!). Even the Vatican agrees (http://spacefellowship.com/news/art15561/vatican-holds-conference-on-extraterrestrial-life.html) -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

:Did you research this issue with an open mind, or is your mind already made up? You might try taking the quiz at [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].

::Frankly, it seems that whoever wrote this list in the first place had their mind made up. The few citations that do exist in the article link to scientific literature that does not even support the "counterexamples" raised. But yes, I just took the quiz and posted my answers on my page. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

:I may get to your other points later, if I have time. I suggest you focus on your very best points for discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::I am happy to discuss everything I wrote, although I am better versed in things geology rather than biology or astrophysics. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::If anybody has major doubts about the points I raised, I'd really suggest taking an introductory geology class at your local community college. Even if it at all related to your career field, it can be really interesting stuff and is extremely useful when deciphering the BS we hear from our politicians every day (especially on issues related to oil reserves, global warming, and so forth).

::Andy, I know that I am not going to change your mind on the subject of an old Earth (perhaps you and I should both take the open mind quiz). My worry is that students may come to CP as a resource, and in viewing a page such as this would be very misled on what scientists actually know about the planet we live on. It is one thing to say that there are many unanswered questions in the geologic sciences, it is another to say that the opinions of over 99% of geologists say is wrong. Keep in mind, these are the very geologists who we trust to mine our metals, drill our oil, and find us fresh water to drink. [[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:26, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== suggestions about two counterexamples ==
I have some suggestions to improve two of these counterexamples. First, I'm not quite sure I understand why "a stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades" implies a young earth. Some clarification would be helpful. Secondly, I'm also not sure why an increase in premature graying implies a young earth. Additionally, the article only cites a couple of famous people who have grayed prematurely to prove this point. Is there any data to support this? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 23:52, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

: Additional evidence is welcome on the premature graying issue, but I don't think it can be seriously doubted. Observations about people graying at younger ages are typical, and the opposite is never heard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:07, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

: As to your other point, it's a matter of seeing a trend stop, which suggests a young rather than old earth. If a river dries up one spring, then it suggests the river was probably not flowing there for thousands of years, but was more likely the result of a rainy winter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:09, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Hello Mr. Schlafly, thank you for responding to my concerns. I still don't see how a trend stopping really implies anything about the age of the earth. The last two popes have not been Italian, and I don't see how that would say anything about the age of the earth. The decline in scientific advances could be due to any number of causes. Perhaps there has been a shift in focus towards making consumer goods within the currently available technologies. Perhaps investment in research has declined. Those are just two possible reasons. If it is true that people are graying earlier, it could be due to increased stress levels. These phenomena have plenty of possible interpretations. I don't see how trends stopping is inconsistent with an Old Earth. Could you perhaps clarify further? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 00:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

:You make valid points. Would you like to remove it based on your arguments? Feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:11, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion re: extinction rate ==

The extinction rate is far too high to be consistent with an Old Earth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point was that the values given for current extinction rates are not 'observed' rates. They are based on a few observed extinctions and extrapolated enormously based upon estimates as to the total number of species on the planet (most estimates suggest only a minority are currently known to science). Secondly, it would only be inconsistent if the extinction rate were to have remained constant throughout history relative to the rate of speciation. All the evidence points to a highly variable rate of extinction, with several periods of mass extinctions interspersed with long periods of relatively low extinction. The whole reason so much has been written recently on extinction is that the current estimates are unusually high, with the blame being placed upon human activities, particularly in terms of habitat loss. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:14, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

::In fact, looking over most of these counterexamples, they tend to be built upon incorrect assumptions (many assume that processes can only have occurred at a constant rate throughout history, when evidence suggests otherwise), or they are based upon dubious and unsupported claims (the one about people getting grey hair at an earlier age is based solely upon a handful of well-known examples with no scientific study of widespread trends at all. This entire article needs to be drastically re-worked. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:27, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-05-16T16:15:58Z

WilliamB1:

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive 1|Archive 1]].'''''

----


I'd like to take out the phrase "asserted by atheists" from one of the Astronomy counterexamples, because it is not just atheists who believe in an [[Old Earth]] but also [[Old Earth Creationists]]. Any objections? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:37, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

== Freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young. ==

I'd like to have this point removed: The [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Countering_the_counter_examples|previous discussion]] has shown that it doesn't have any merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

As no one added to the previous discussion, I removed the point. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==

That's as bad as the example of the lakes: it reminds me of stating: ''he cannot be old, all his pimples are recent''. And the given references don't mention any ''extrapolation''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:03, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Great Lakes ==

''The massive [[Great Lakes]] are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago''

That would be only a counterexample, if there were any geologist who thought them to be millions of years old. But it seems to be scientific consensus that these lakes were created during the last great ice age ca. 10,000 years ago. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:07, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Salt Water Lakes ==

''The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]]''

No, it doesn't. It just suggests that [[endorheic]] lakes exist - lakes without an outflow to rivers or the ocean. If such a sea has an inflow, any dissolved material (like salts) will accumulate, while the water just evaporates.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:12, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reply to above 4 comments ==

The 4 comments above are not substantive. In each case, the evidence is that a basic attribute of Earth ''is'' young, and nothing above supports the denial of this fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:No. But they are all counterarguments to the concreteness of your examples. The comments above are all traditionally accepted and easily verifiable scientific theories that offer a more plausible and widely accepted version of what happened than the case you present. Take for example, your point regarding inland saltwater lakes. You make the claim that they can ONLY exist with the aid of a global flood. This is CATEGORICALLY untrue, and demonstrates a dangerous predisposition to jump to conclusions without scientific fact. As mentioned above. The existence of said lakes is attributed to a chemical tendency known as distillation. Water is volatile and salt is not, therefore water evaporates out of the lake until the concentration of salt and other solids is extremely high. You can duplicate this experiment at home by taking a large jug of tap water and allowing it to sit in a hot, bright, dry room for a few weeks. When you return, the tap water will have an extremely high salinity, no ocean water needed.

:Conversely, the claim about a global flood has numerous holes in it. For one, there is no uniform layer of sediment that exists evenly in global geological strata. Such a layer would be inevitable if the world really was entirely submerged for any appreciable period of time. Secondly, and more importantly, there isn't enough water to fill the oceans AND cover the land. A global flood would require that there had once been a lot of water that is no longer present on earth, and this simply can't happen.

:I'm sorry to say, Andy, but YOUR arguments are not substantive.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:02, 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== What's a counterexample? ==

Maybe we have to start with the question above. I think it is reasonable to expect a ''counterexample'' to have some basic properties:

# it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.
# it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a ''Young Earth'' and finally:
# the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.

What are the theories saying? Here are two working definitions...

'''Old Earth''': Since the 18th century, scientist are convinced that the surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time. So, if there is a somewhat widespread geological feature, we expect that we can observe it in all stages of development.

'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped as we find it now by the Great Flood.

So, how do the examples fit in?

: Frank, the style of your remarks reflect a lack of an open mind towards this issue. You state, "Since the 18th century, scientist[s] are convinced ... over long periods of time." This is an historical distortion, and unhelpful to an open-minded discussion even if were true.

: I welcome open-minded discussions, but closed-minded discussions are often a waste of time. So please show some signs of an open mind about this first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

::I'm all for an open-minded discussion, too, and I'm sorry if my previous comment didn't convey this. So, let's drop the historical aspect, and just say:
::*'''Old Earth''': The surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time, and the rate of this change is roughly constant.
::*'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped by the Great Flood a couple of thousands years ago.

::But I hope you can agree with the basic properties (points 1-3 above) a ''counterexample to an Old Earth'' should have?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:46, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Frank, are you trying to refute any of the counterexamples? (In which case please provide some actual evidence) Your closed-minded insistence on causing argument seems pointless. [[User:ArnoldR|ArnoldR]] 08:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them ===
''Fragile natural arches'' exist, as there are always formed new ones. Old natural arches collapse, but [http://www.archmillennium.net/Baby_Arch.htm others] may [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kcb60/level2/lith61.html replace] them. What if there were no natural arches? I don't think that anybody had thought of them then.

=== The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ===
No geologists thinks that these lakes are millions of years old: they were created during the last ice age. Lakes are constantly created (e.g., when rivers change there bed), and happen to perish over time ([[Messel pit]]). Some are older than others ([[Baikal sea]]). The absence of new lakes would be quite puzzling for geologists! And Earth isn't as young as the youngest lake, but much older than the oldest one... (by FrankC)

: The "ice age theory" was a patch to try to explain away the counterexample. The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::It quite a leap to get from ''Great Lakes were created during the last ice age'' to ''all lakes were created during the last ice age''! There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the [[Great Flood]], though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.
::BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::: Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample.

::: As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here:

::::1. it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility.

::::2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally:

:::::No, this is not required, but illustrates a basic flaw in Old-Earth-thinking. Do you think mathematicians accept the validity of a hypothesis as long as no competing hypothesis has been proven? Of course not.

::::3. the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::''implausible ice age theory''? What's implausible about that? It just doesn't fit your YEC preconceptions.
::::::# Yes, I include the requirement of plausibility. What's the point of implausible counterexamples?
::::::# Is there a third theory I haven't heard of? If the Earth isn't young, it is old.
::::::# ''This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates''. No, I'm afraid, that' just obvious common sense.
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:55, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Frank, if you're not going to address my substantive points, then please don't respond. I make a direct analogy to mathematical hypotheses and you ignored it. Do you really think a mathematical hypothesis must be true if there is no proof for the converse?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:16, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::::I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the substantive points, so I try to make myself clearer by using the language of logic. So, let's '''C''' be a counterexample to the Old Earth Theory ('''OET'''). If '''C''' is true, than '''OET''' should be false, that's the first point:
::::::::'''1: ''' '''C ⇒ ~OET'''. If '''C''' is a good counterexample, than this equation should be obvious for everyone.
::::::::I thought the Young Earth Theory ('''YET''') and the Old Earth Theory to be complementary, so ''' YET = ~OET'''. Therefore obviously
::::::::'''2: ''' '''C ⇒ YET'''
::::::::And from ''1'', one gets
::::::::'''3: ''' ''' OET ⇒ ~C'''
::::::::I hope that this straightforward formulation is less confusing than my verbose ''the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. '' I formulated it this way, as all this isn't as ''exact'' as one would wish for: what's an obvious relation for one, needs quite an elaborate explanation for another.

::::::::But now for ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ''. As I said before, OET don't claim that these lakes existed millions of years ago, but are quite recent. You then said : '' The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.'' So, what's your ''counterexample'' now? Do you claim that the OET implies that all lakes are of the same age or were created in the same way? It seems to me that you are saying: ''As there are lakes near the Equator, the Great Lakes are millions of years old - according to OET''. But that's just a [[strawman]], and shouldn't be included in the list.
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood ===
As said earlier, saltwater lakes are explained easily as being [[endorheic]]. If there were no saltwater seas, then the endorheic basins would have to be very unstable, preventing bodies of water to become older than a couple of hundred years. This would imply quite a geologic activity, which we don't observe. But how do these inland saltwater lakes fit within the theory of a ''Young Earth''? Do you imply that the Earth was inundated by a salty ocean for forty days and nights? How could anything survive - and multiply - on this salty ground when the water receded? To explain these lakes with a global flood poses quite a few problems.
So, this ''counterexample'' is especially unconvincing, as it fails all three basic properties...

=== An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age ===
Has anyone done this extrapolation? Without it, the point is moot.

At the moment, the article impresses with the quantity of examples. But the obvious weakness of some examples distracts from other examples which may have some merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lakes again ==

*It was repeatedly explained why the ''Great Lakes'' are no countexample to an Old Earth.
*Aschlafly concluded: ''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample."''
*Aschlafly, could you reformulate the ''counterexample'' in question? Thanks.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:49, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: There are large freshwater lakes near the Equator. Do you think an "Ice Age" formed them also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::To quote myself: ''There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the Great Flood, though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.'' [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:15, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You may quote yourself, but your answer was less than direct. You seem to admit that that the Ice Age did NOT form the large freshwater lakes near the Equator. But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also. That defies explanation consistent with an Old Earth theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Pfft, in the 70's [[Liberal|liberals]] were saying that the earth was cooling. Now, its supposedly warming. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their tune about the "Ice Age" in 40 years.

''But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also.''

I'm afraid that your confidence is misplaced - the examinations and tests of geologists lead to different results. Let's have a closer look - what lakes are we talking about? Near to the equator - say in the strip between 5° North and 5° South - the number of lakes of considerable size isn't big:
*[[South America]]: none
*[[Indonesia]]: '''Lake Toba''' on [[Sumatra]], '''Lake Tempe''' and '''Lake Poso''' on [[Sulawesi]]. Lake Toba is the largest volcanic lake in the world, resulting from an eruption 69,000 - 78,000 years ago. So, it's older (according to the test of geologists) than the last [[Ice Age]], but fairly young on a geological scale. Lake Tempe is a flood plain of an average depth of 5m, so it's quite volatile in geological standards. Lake Poso is a tectonic lake and regarded as ancient (1 - 2 million years).
*[[Africa]]: Here you find the [[African Great Lakes]], in the area of our interest especially, the [[Lake Victoria]], [[Lake Tanganyika]], [[Lake Turkana]], [[Lake Albert]], [[Lake Kivu]], and [[Lake Edward]]. These are located in the [[Great Rift Valley]], which is - according to geologists - a continental rift zone. Though you may call ''Lake Victoria'' young - as it's only 500,000 old and dried out a couple of times, the other lakes are estimated to be roughly 4 million years old.

All of these lakes are older than the American [[Great Lakes]]. So, I repeat my request: please, remove ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '' from the list of counterexamples:
* it is misleading, as ''atheistic geologists'' don't claim that these lakes ''have existed millions of years ago''
* your alternate approach (''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample'') doesn't work neither, as there are ancient (≈ 4 million years) freshwater lakes.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:47, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.

: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::''None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.''
::On the contrary, there is little doubt under geologists that all of the lakes above are not young (with the possible exception of Lake Tempe) . Every textbook on geology will tell you that the oldes of Great African Lakes were formed ≈ 4 mya ago, with Lake Victoria being the youngest of the lot<ref>John Reader, ''Africa'', National Geographic 9/2001</ref>. The [http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0601-09= Toba event] took place ≈ 70,000 years ago.
::''Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.''
::This doesn't make sense. Carbon dating is only used on relatively young (holecenic) freshwater sources. (More in a separate section)
::''I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory?''
::I thought that I've answered this question, too, but I'll elaborate:
::*no, arguing against one theory doesn't defend the other. But both theories can't be true simultaneously - though both could be false. OTOH, there aren't that many concurring theories out there. And entries like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=784643&oldid=784484 this] of your fellow sysop ''Conservative'' show that on this page, Old Earth Theory and Young Earth Theory are put against each other.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? Of course not. The Old Earth theory is disproved by the numerous counterexamples, and creationism is irrelevant to that disproof or a reasoned discussion of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==

What's implausible about it? The article [[Ice Age]] doesn't say anything about plausibility. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:51, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last [[Ice Age]] nor for the [[Great Flood]].

::The creation of the Great Lakes however can be studied by geologists who examined the history of this area. Their surveys paint an interesting picture of the formation of the Great Lakes ([http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/damery1/gl_form.html here] an introduction).

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, you repeatedly reason in an "either-or" manner, as though the only two possibilities are the [[Old Earth]] and your view of [[creationism]]. That's not logical or scientific. Both could be wrong. No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.

::: If the Ice Age theory provided a plausible explanation for the Great Lakes and other observed formations (such as the Mississippi bluffs), then a computer simulation would be easy to build. But it hasn't been done, which suggests that the Ice Age theory is implausible in explaining all that is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::*both could be false, both aren't simulated globally
:::*are you ''confident'' that such a simulation could be easily build? The formation of the Great Lakes has been simulatied - that's something I'm confident of.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:24, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::(Could you please answer to my substantive edits in the previous section? Thanks. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:25, 2 June 2010 (EDT))

:::: Computer simulations would be easy to make. scientists clearly have access to computers. If they're so confident of their "theories" why not make an accurate simulation and add that as proof? I think they know there irratioinal beliefs won't help up to scruteny. FrankC, just have an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:36, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Actually, this PDF contains the results of just such a survey: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V72-48F04CM-26&_user=10&_coverDate=08/20/1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1478705466&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4e83cc89688e873bc3fa1889ab02a7b4&searchtype=a

:::::Andy, and ReligiousRight, I would suggest you both take your own advice on open-mindedness and try to read it.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

:::::And, just as a side note: As a programmer, I can assure you that simulating systems that involve literally millions of variables is about as easy as as it sounds.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages ==

# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

The source doesn't corroborate the claim. The authors of the study seem to be well aware of the limits of [[carbon dating]], and don't try to apply it to pre-Holecene water. And of course, a reservoir can be older than the water it holds (you can't judge the age of the glass by the vintage of the wine!).

Conservapedia's article on [[carbon dating]] highlights the fact that it can't be used to determine ages older than 50,000 years.

nota bene: the source shouldn't be used for ''lakes'' at all: it mentions lakes only in a passing reference to the founder of the science of dating water, Franke and Deevey.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:08, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

<references/>

:"14C dating of the DIC in palaeowater is indispensable for paleohydrological and palaeoclimatologi-
cal reconstructions and for applied hydrogeological studies. Numerical mass-transport modeling
profits from the improvement of hydrogeological conceptions and the revision of boundary condi-
tions. In the case of non-steady-state recharge conditions, maximum and minimum recharge rates in
the past may be estimated from 14C dates of DIC via numerical modeling.

:14C dates measured from DIC enable the determination of regional geohydraulic parameters and
allow water balances to be checked. In most applications, complementary environmental isotope
analyses of hydrogen and oxygen together with general hydrochemical measurements are recom-
mended to facilitate a comprehensive and thorough interpretation of the 14C dates (Cark and Fritz
1997).

:A primary task towards a significant improvement in the applied 14C dating of groundwater remains
with the development of procedures that will enable 14C activities measured from DIC to be confi-
dently included in the calibration of finite-element and compartmental modeling exercises."

:This is a quote from the conclusion of the paper Andy cited to make his point about C-14 testing. In short, the conclusion says that it is necessary to further develop C-14 testing for dissolved carbons so as to improve our understanding of paleohydrology. The paper never makes concrete assertions about the "age" of the water, just suggestions for a method of testing the organic mater in water to help determine the age of isolated aquifers (NOT LAKES, which would have inconsistent levels due to evaporation and run-off.

:Andy, please start showing more discretion with the scope of your claims, and present better evidence. Bad arguments are a detraction from the integrity of this site, and your posts only end up hurting our argument.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:43 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Answer to Aschlafy ==

You asked: ''You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? ''

I don't think that the reason for the Old Earth theory to be true is that Young Earth creationism is false. But even if I followed the insinuated reasoning above, that shouldn't influence the topic of our discussion: ''counterexamples to an Old Earth''. On this talkpage, I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these counterexamples.

Just for an analogy. Often, you hear criticism of the infallibility of the Bible phrased as questions like ''Whom did Cain marry?'' ''What's the value of π according to 1 Kings 7:23?''. These questions can be phrased as ''counterexamples to Biblical inerrancy'':

*Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.

*The circumference and the diameter of a bronze vessel are given as 30 units and 10 units. Therefore, the Bible claims that π equals 3.

Are these valid ''counterexamples''? Would someone using these examples in a discussion impress his dialog partners? No , of course not! The first one makes a claim (''there were no other people'' - Adam and Eve had other children!) not made in the Bible - therefore erecting a straw-man, the second one talks about the features of a special object: maybe there was a brim? And ''3''' ''is'' an approximation for π.... a These so-called ''counterexamples'' are easily explained within the Biblical framework, and anyone using them shows just his ignorance in these matters. Therefore, repeating them and ignoring the given explanation is just a Mantric exercise for those who chose not to face reality: I hope that we can agree that these ''counterexamples'' are weak, and their weakness can be seen be everyone - believing in Biblical inerrancy or not.

I'm afraid that the same must be said about some of the ''counterexamples to an Old Earth'': the most impressive about them is their number. But the individual examples tend to be quite weak. What happens to a pupil using them in a discussion with his fellow students - or his teacher? He will be faced with further questions and explanations. For instance, look at:

*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago

Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.

To prevent this, you should perhaps elaborate the examples, and give refutations for the explanations of geologists.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:What if we assume that geologists really do think that the Great Lakes were made by icebergs 10,000 years ago instead of 10,000,000? There is still no proof of this, not even a computer model (which I assure you could be easily done). Your argument is much ado about nothing. [[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 14:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::See my post responding to this topic earlier. The model is there in the link. Other proof includes any of the numerous geological surveys that can be found by googling the topic in google scholar. Also, "much ado about nothing" is taken from Shakespearian slang for sex crazed. I find the assertion that Frank is a sex addict just because you disagree with him to be insulting.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:49 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Observations on some deceitful points in this article ==

Hi. I'm new here after finding this site from a google search on abortion. I also came across this, um, peculiar article. I looked at some of the facts presented and it looks deliberately misleading:

*For example, because freshwater lakes appear to be "young" (subjective term but we'll go with it) has no indication on the age of the earth.

*The earth's magnetic field is indeed declining, but when I go to that NASA site, in the ''same, exact'' paragraph, it says:

{{Cquote|There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million years according to geological evidence. The time between reversals seems to be growing longer, and is currently about 300,000 years or so. The last one of these happened about 770,000 years ago (0.77 on the graph). We are currently living during a period that has been called the Brunhes Magnetic Chron when the South Magnetic Pole is in the Northern Hemisphere. During the previous Matumaya Magnetic Chron, the North Magnetic Pole was in the Northern Hemisphere! Note that, from the polarity figure, at a time 0.94 million years ago (940,000 years ago) the magnetic field reverse itself by going nearly to 'zero' but then after a few thousand years it recovered and began to increase in strength. During the next 150,000 years it rose to a maximum strength and then began to decline. Notice, also, how fast the magnetic field recovers after it reaches 'zero', in some cases much less than 10,000 years.}}

.. but then the article has:

''Presently, Earth's magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. ... Not comparable to an old earth''

Kind of deceptive and misleading, if not blatantly lying, no?

Thanks for your feedback, [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 15:45, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

===Another observation===
Religulous Right [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=786079&oldid=786069 undid] an edit of mine, so I'll explain why I removed it. First off, it's highly speculative and opinionated to an individual:
*Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.
*Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth. Thanks [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:21, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
: I realize you're new here. However, you can't just walk into somebody's living room and strart deleting their work because you don't approve of it. Either you make your case here or contribute to the project with material before you start deleting stuff. If all new useres starting deleting everything they didn't like we would end up with no material. Also, if you didn't notice, there were four footnotes in the section you deleted. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:47, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::I made my case above, did you not read it? [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:50, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Hopefully I can address a few of your concerns here, Douglas.
:::*''Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.'' The only data I could find on this statement is [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/26/sat here], which does show a slow and steady decline within the past five years of critical reading skills, while mathematics has stayed steady the past three years. The average high school student's SAT score, given the data, has dropped, though I concede that there is perhaps not enough data to make a definitive statement on the matter.
:::*''Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth.'' Style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence, but linguistics and grammar do. The spoken word has become—for lack of a better word (heh)—lazy due to either lost interest in proper spoken word or lack of mental ability to comprehend and utilize it. I believe that one's speech capabilities are intertwined with how intelligent he is.
:::In the future, please wait for someone to address your points before making changes to a sensitive article. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:05, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Yes. However, I'm saying make your case BEFORE you start deleting points that could possibly be great insights. We don't want to be engaging in [[Liberal censorship]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for the aid, RR, but this user has been politely removed from the site. He may return in three days. Until then, RR, may I suggest you do something more productive than bicker with liberals on talk pages? I understand they are infuriating, but trust me, us admins have got it under control. Nothing gets by us. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 20:03, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
I didn't realize he was a liberal. I thought he just may have been a deluded conservative. Even they make me very angry! But you're right. I'll do something more productive. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 20:09, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::''Administrators'', RR, will offer instruction to other users, not other editors. Is that clear? I am disturbed by the continual similarities in your observations and those of past users we eventually found not to be of good intentions. Jacob's suggestion for you if far more polite than any I would offer at this moment, as I would have blocked you both for two days. While your contributions are appreciated the same as anyone else editing here, refrain from emulating other editors style, especially administrators, and completely refrain from bombast and unsupported statements, RR. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:38, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

== Sources ==

The sources for some of the ''counterexamples'' highlight their weaknesses:
* [http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."] is a broken link. I couldn't find the actual article. When stating sources, it is helpful (and add to their credibility) if basic information is given, like the date of the publishing, the name of the author, etc.
* [http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"] this source doesn't say anything about the age of the galaxy
* http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0 is a hint to the review from some Portuguese guy whoe writes about the book ''The Young Earth''. I commented this one out as the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] state ''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others.''
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:38, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

*I get an error for http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 , too
The reinsertion of the link I took out is somewhat surprising. Could someone define what is to be understood by an ''authoritative work''? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:19, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:: Frank, your comments are nit-picky stuff. This is a site for the open-minded, earnest search for the truth. A galaxy spinning in a direction opposite to its tail confounds old earth theories, and that problem is not to be dismissed because a reporter didn't fully address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:22, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Where are you getting this information, Andy? You shoot down other's intuition and demand fact when people oppose you, but you refuse to offer fact, when you've been backed into a corner. That isn't fair. intuition doesn't make an argument. You need REAL sources for these assertions. It isn't nit-picky to say that the links you provide for most citations DO NOT remotely support your point. [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:54 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Newsweek ==

I couldn't find the article in ''newsweek'' - some censorship on their part? I reread the somewhat bizarre discussion in the [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Instability_of_the_Solar_System|archived talk page]] of this article, and [http://www.google.de/#hl=en&q=%22the+planetary+orbits+will+indeed+become+chaotic%2C%22+laughlin&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=b52ff5a993c4ca35 googling] for the quote ''But the chances of orbits changing with less-than-catastrophic results are greater, notes Laughlin: "the planetary orbits will indeed become chaotic," with "the time required for chaos to significantly degrade the predictability of a system [on] the order of 5 million years."'', I came up with this article on [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/459781a.html Nature]. But the conclusion of this article is somewhat the opposite of the statement made here, as it's abstract states:

''Simulations show that orbital chaos can lead to collisions between Earth and the inner planets. But Einstein's tweaks to Newton's theory of gravity render these ruinous outcomes unlikely in the next few billion years.''

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

: Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:27, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::The quote above wasn't from some ''reporter'', but made by Gregory Laughlin (Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California), while your counterexample seems to be based on conclusion of the reporter of Newsweek. The factual information can be found here: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] and can be summarized as: yes such collisional trajectories exist, but they are even more improbable than thought earlier. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:34, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:12, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::::You give excellent advice: ''Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased''. As I stated above, I couldn't find the piece in ''Newsweek'' anymore. You are aware that reporters of popular magazines tend to prefer a sensational headline over a more level-headed one, i.e. ''doom incoming!'' over ''scientists say incoming doom unlikely''.
::::Fortunately, the very articles the Newsweek's journalist wrote about are still available, and I linked to them in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Here, you find the factual information, summarized by Gregory Laughlin:
::::'''Their [i.e. J. Laskar's & M. Gastineau's] work shows that the orbits of the terrestrial planets -- Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars -- have a roughly 99% chance of maintaining their current, well-ordered clockwork for the roughly 5 billion years that remain before the Sun evolves into a red giant and engulfs the inner Solar System''''''
::::Getting from this to ''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' or ''The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual'' is quite surprising.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:50, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

== Receding Moon ==

''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago ''

What's ''too close''? [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html According to NASA], the current rate is 3.8 cm/year<ref>[http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994.)</ref>. If we assume that this rate is constant, than it gained over the last billion years:

'''1,000,000,000 year × 3.8cm/year = 3,800,000,000cm = 38,000,000m = 38,000km'''

That roughly 10% of the current mean orbital radius of the [[Moon]] of 378,000km!

But the [[Roche limit]] of the system Earth-Moon is 18,000km - even 5 billion years ago the moon would not have been within this critical region.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

: 10% off the mean is a huge difference, which would have many dire effects. Note that it is bigger than 10% with respect to the closest distance. Have you looked into that? Also, Old Earth believers claim the age is far older than 1 billion years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== Pattern ==

*''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago '': that is wrong, a billion years ago, there was no problem with the Moon's orbit, even at the current rate of receding.
*''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '': that is deceptive, as geologists don't claim that the Great Lakes existed millions of years ago.
*''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' That is misleading, as they probability that the solar system maintains stable is 99%.

What is to be achieved by massing up a great number of flawed statements?
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:31, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:I've addressed your first point in the section above. Your second point does not rebut the truth of the statement. The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it. Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative. The solar system is unstable, and that is undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:12, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::''The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it.'' Science isn't about the public misconceptions of a theory, but the theory itself.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:33, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

== Links ==
<references />

== Strontium Isotopes ==

The concentration of strontium isotopes in seawater is fluctuating - and the concentration at various times is well known (and tabled). ''Long-term erosion'' is not the only cause of changing concentrations (e.g, have a look [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989AREPS..17..141V here]), so the assumption of a monotonous process is overly simplistic.

For short: not a good example, neither.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:49, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

:I added a fact tag, as there doesn't seem to be a source to back up the claim made in this ''counterexample''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:08, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Speculations ==

Dear Andy,
above, you write ''Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative.'' No, it is not - as the quoted article states, the probabilities are calculated using the best current models and the best simulations. So, ''purely speculative'' doesn't fit this point at all!

OTOH, I have to read: ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that.'' '''Colliding with the Earth before that'''? Have you done any calculation? Made a simple simulation? I doubt it! In fact, a simple back-of-an-envelope calculation would have shown that the Moon was far from ''colliding'' - even making the assumption of a constant rate of recession!

I'm prone to erase this speculative (or better. factually incorrect) statement, but I don't want to be accused of ''censorship''. Therefore, I just added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-tag, giving you the possibility to back up this sentence with ''facts''.

I'll do the same for the for the entry ''An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.'', as I couldn't find such an extrapolation anywhere, especially not in the given source.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:16, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

: Frank, your comments are longwinded, but did you respond to the defect in your comparison of the distance that Moon recedes to its mean distance from the Earth? Obviously the relevant comparison is to the closest distance of the Moon to the Earth. Please respond to that relevant issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:35, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

::*Assuming a constant rate of recession, I get the following values:
:::{|
|Recession of the Moon over one billion years (assuming a constant rate)||''' 38,000km'''
|-
|Current mean orbital radius:||'''378,000km'''
|-
|Current perigee:||'''363,000km'''
|}
::So, a billion years ago, the [[Moon]] would have been 10.05% (mean orbital radius) or 10.47% (closest distance) nearer to the Earth than it is now. Yes, there are consequence of such a closer distance (e.g., more and greater tidal movements), but I doubt that simple multicellular ocean-based life-forms would bother, so this isn't that relevant, is it?
::*Now, could you address the following problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::*JacobB deleted the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags I added to the two statements above without any further comment (or indeed coming up with sources/calculations/simulations). As he obviously doesn't like when comments of a sysop are reversed, I refrain from doing so. But I do think that these was the perfect place to insert such tags, as
:::#The statements aren't obvious, as they involve estimations and calculations
:::#I did research, and couldn't find any source to back up the claims
:::#In fact, according to my own estimations, these statements are wrong
:::#I stated the reasons for inserting the tags above
:::So, please, back up the statements, or reinsert the tags (hoping that someone else comes up with an explanation), or just delete the statements.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Solar Fusion ==

''The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.''

Could someone add some numbers to this? For me, it sounds just wrong, and I couldn't find any source for it. It's something different from the [[Faint young Sun problem]], I suppose. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:02, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

:http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/sun/sun-chapter5.html

:This article explains the life of the sun so far, with some great equations that explain the rate of H and He depletion in the solar fusion reaction. As you can see, the math supports a sun of at least 4.5 billion years old, with a life span that will extend for another 5 to 10 billion years.

:No doubt, Andy will chastise me for posting this, and demand that i be more open minded (ie. believe only what he believes and disregard "liberally biased math" in favor of the more biblically friendly "no real evidence at all")

== Geothermal Activity ==

''The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.''

Why not? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Questionable Probabilities ==

''If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here (as of June 28, 2010) has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with 93% probability.''

This seems to be modeled after [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]:

''Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that), then the odds that these counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is infinitesimally small (only a 6% chance that evolution is true with 54 possible counterexamples).''

There are quite a few problems with these statements:
*Why 10% in the first case, but only 5% in the second? Is it that otherwise these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with probability of 72% - and that value isn't convincing enough?
*Where do these probabilities come from? Is there a source which utters statements of which one in ten (or one in twenty) is correct?
*To assume that all these counterexamples are '''independent''' is ''very'' problematic!
*Generally, these counterexamples don't make predictions about unknowns, so, the validity of a statement like ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that'' can be calculated at this very moment: The probability that this counterexample is correct is ''zero'' as the statement is wrong.

I won't delete these ''"calculations"'', but I'll add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags to give the authors (or others) the opportunity to state their lines of reasoning: So, why are these probabilities reasonable estimates, and why are the ''odds far higher than that'' resp. why are these ''underestimates''?

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:03, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

: The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful. It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect. A number of 50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%. Regardless, the point is clear and educational.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:04, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

::*''The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful.'' Helpful for what?
::*''It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect.'' Stating probabilities like '''6%''' or '''93%''' is a claim to be precise. Getting such precise numbers by putting together some very rough estimates (''50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%'') isn't good statistical practice.
::*''Regardless, the point is clear and educational.'' What's the educational purpose of this point: ''add percentages to your statements because that sounds scientific'' ?
::*Above, I answered to your question on perigee vs. mean radius. Could you please address my problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::Thanks, [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind. If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it. But we're not going to censor the point itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::''Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. '' No, it's a ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia''. That's why I'm not posing random questions, but I'm questioning dubious and unsourced statements. I'm not doing so frivolously, but only after checking into the statements myself. As you made these statements, you should either be able to give the necessary calculations/estimations/simulations to affirm them, or you should '''delete''' these questionable counterexamples. To paraphrase one of your comments: '''Please respond to these relevant issues''' - as you expect us to answer your questions...
::::''The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind.'' I'm sorry but I'm getting the idea that this is a scatter-shot approach where most of the projectiles are expect to miss...
::::''If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it.'' No, I've no better way of stating it, as I don't think it can be stated correctly. May I add that deleting a wrong point from an ecyclopedia isn't censorship, but just due editorial process?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:29, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: No, Frank, you're challenging a mathematical truth here. We welcome suggestions on explaining truths better. [[Censorship]] is not welcome here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::*I don't doubt the mathematical truth that 1-0.925 ~ 0.93, but I doubt that this model is applicable. That's a difference.
::::::*Above, you asked me a question. I answered it - obviously satisfactorily, as there was no follow-up question of you. Now, I asked you two questions. Could you please try to answer them?
:::::::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::::::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::::::*The counterexamples concerned by these questions aren't self-evident, and the first statement seems to be plainly wrong to me. If you fail to address these problems, if any query for additional information (i.e., the <nowiki>{{fact]]</nowiki>-tags) is removed, you give the impression that the only reason for these examples to be included in the list is that you just like them. Is this sufficient for an encyclopedia?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:59, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
* The Earth-Moon collision is not a statemente about a future fact, but a statement about a past event. ''Given the current models'' of tidal friction, and extrapolating backwards ''ceteris paribus'', the Earth-Moon ''would have'' collided (or, being as close as you wish) about 109 years ago. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:23, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
** Or, more precisely, about 2 x 109 years ago, according to "Lunar nodal tide and distance to the Moon during the Precambrian", J.C.G. Walker, K.J. Zahnle - Nature, 1986. There may be other theories (even negating this); I found that using Google Academic with "tidal friction earth moon collision". [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:36, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:: Severe problems from the moon being in close proximity to the earth would arise well before the 2 billion years you cite.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

The [[Christian apologetics|evidence for Christianity and the Bible is extremely strong]] and Bible exegesis does not support an old earth and that is why traditional Judaism and most of the early Church fathers who spoke on the issue believe in a young earth. Plus, there is [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth plenty of evidence for a young earth.] The probability for an old earth is zero. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:20, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to evidence for a young earth has some interesting examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:31, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
:: Interesting but totally unscientific I'm afraid. And illogical. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:35, 12 February 2011 (EST)

::: I wonder what your score, "Darkmind", would be on an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openmindedness test]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:11, 12 February 2011 (EST)

== Dissipation of Underground Well Water ==

I was wondering if anyone has more information or explanation about the counterexample, "The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time." This is a very intriguing counterexample, but I don't quite understand it based on my understanding of entropy (from a classical thermodynamics perspective) and I could not find any supporting sources. Also, "high concentrations of underground well water" seems either vague or imprecisely worded (does this mean high ''volumes'', or is it high concentrations within a geographic area...). Thanks. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 15:21, 15 February 2011 (EST)
:As I understand it, all things tend to disorder over time. If the atheistic belief of a billions of years old earth were true, this water would have long since lost its order and would now be in a completely random, disordered state. This is clearly not the case and once again the evolutionists are proven wrong. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 15:37, 15 February 2011 (EST)
::OK, so it seems like we could expect any matter that is billions of years old to be in a completely random, disordered state by now. Maybe this counterexample doesn't need to refer specifically to underground well water. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 16:25, 15 February 2011 (EST)

:::The example of water is particularly striking. If I see a bucket full of water in a desert, then I can infer it has not been there more than a day or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:03, 15 February 2011 (EST)

== Merging of some counterexamples? ==

First of all I would like to thank the authors for your counterexamples. I allway accepted the Old Earth Theory, without thinking too much about it. This article has certainly given me some new perspectives.
But: I think quite a few of the counterexamples could be merged together. For instance: In Astronomy: Counterexample nr. 1 and nr. 6 say basically the same thing: the moons orbit is unstable, thus it could not have existed billions of years before, since it would have collided with the earth.
The same goes for counterexamples nr. 2 and 4. The basic statement is: spiral galaxies are rather young.
Similar redundancy can be seen in the Geology section.
I think it would improve the article if there were fewer counterexamples, that state basically the same thing. But that's just my two cents.
À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:54, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

: I looked at 1 and 6, and also 2 and 4, and each make different, distinct points. One could also complain about my use of "different, distinct" in my prior sentence as being somewhat redundant too, I suppose! But those adjectives convey individual meaning also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:: Thank you for your quick response. After rereading the different examples, I agree. They are different. So "redundant" was certainly the wrong expression (since English is not my first language, such imprecisions unfortunately occur...). But the examples are still similar to each other, producing (at least for me) a feeling of déja vu. What concerns me is that said déja vus kinda downplay the great new insights this article offers. They reduce the "newness" of the presented information. That's why I would suggest that for instance examples 1 and 6 be merged to something like this:
::''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the moon being as they are today. The Moon's orbit is '''also''' becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stabilit. '''Thus further disproving the theory of an Old Earth'''''
::It's just a minor formal change although I think it would improve the reading experience. À Dieu --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 16:05, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, your suggestion is a good one, although it seems to require combining two separate problems into one. But both concern the Moon, so please combine them as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::::Done. I hope it is to your liking. If I have more time I might take a look at some other examples that could be merged. But I think I'll rather look at some history and/or literature articles fisrt. If I do find more potential mergers, I will of course discuss them here first. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 17:17, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

== Articles like this one Reflect Poorly on Conservapedia ==

I completely sympathize with using science to back up the idea of a young Earth, but much of what is posted here is, from any geologists standpoint, silly. I could have answered any of these problems after only my first course or two at university. I work as a research scientist at NASA and I have two degrees in geology and planetary science, and will be going back to school in the fall for my PhD. Prior to NASA I was a researcher at the SETI Institute. Although my main focus the surface of Mars (I am one of the geologists on the Mars Exploration Rover [Spirit and Opportunity] team), I have also spent years studying the Earth, so I know a little bit of what I am talking about.

I appreciate the concept of Conservapedia, as it is indeed true that the majority of Wikipedia users are indeed on the more liberal side of the fence. However, for Conservapedia to be respected as a true source of learning, it is important that it get its facts straight.

My main worry in articles such as this one (and the relativity and evolution ones) is that they really mislead students in what scientists actually know and understand. From what I can tell, many of the members on CP are students. If one of these students were to become enrolled in ANY accredited geology program, they would be in for quite a shock.

I just want to be clear, my aim here is not to disprove the idea of a young Earth as described in Genesis. My goal is to alert the reader that these “counterexamples” have mostly been solved (some were answered decades ago). Communication between scientists and the general public is often poor, and the result is people not being aware of the great discoveries that bright minds are making. I have taken the time to critique the “Counterexamples to an Old Earth” page. I am very tempted to attempt to critique the “Counterexamples to Evolution” and “Counterexamples to Relativity” pages, but as a geologist those fields are not my expertise, and I would not want to elaborate on a subject which I do not fully understand.

Virtually everything I am elaborating on here comes from dozens of courses and experience I have in this field, and as a result I used very few citations. I (along with any other geologist I know) could have answered at least 90% these counterexamples after their first year of university courses in the Earth sciences. If anyone has any questions about specific points I make I would be more than happy to look up and direct you to the relevant literature.

So here we go…

First of all, it does not take only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. “Old Earth” is not written down as doctrination as if it were a religious text (this is also true for evolution and relativity). The ideas that make up the old earth “theory” have changed drastically over time, even over the past few decades. For example, plate tectonics was not discovered until the 1970s, yet today form the main basis for how we understand how the way the Earth has evolved. The same goes with the significant role impacts have in changing global processes.

The beauty of science is that nothing is ever 100% true. Just because one portion of a theory fails doesn’t make the entire thing false. It just means that there is far more work to do in the field, meaning students still have plenty of opportunities when they finish university.

Now onto the “counterexamples”:

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

Geology

1. The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them[6].

These arches have not existed since the Earth’s creation. They have been forming over billions of years, and some collapsed while other haven’t.

2. An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches[7] with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.

See above.

3. The massive Great Lakes and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume.

There are no major lakes near the equator (other than Lake Victoria, if that meets your definition of a “great lake”)(this could have to do with the fact that most major landmasses are in the Northern hemisphere). Most large lakes did not exist even tens of thousands of years ago due to the last ice age. One of the reasons these lakes are draining is due to glacial rebound (the Earth’s surface is rising since the weight from the overlying glacier has been removed. This is the same process responsible for isostacy)

4. The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood.

Simply put, no. All lakes that are saline have no outflows. They are salty for the same reason the ocean is. Salt (and other minerals) can flow in, but the only way out is through evaporation. This is why Mono Lake, the Great Salt Lake, and the Dead Sea are salty, while the Great Lakes (and most other lakes) are not. It is not a coincidence that all salty lakes have no outflows.

5. The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time.

Aquifers are replenished from precipitation. A good percentage (almost a third) of rainwater percolates into the ground and refills underground water sources)

6. The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.

Actually, underground water is a muddy slurry prior to being cleaned. Anybody who dug a hole in their backyard would not find water that looked like it came from a faucet. Also, nobody has said that specific aquifers existed for millions of years. I suppose its theoretically possible that some may have, but many others have been around for thousands or tens of thousands of years.

7. Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation every century; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation[8]

Where is the source for this? The rotation of the Earth does change, but what is the level that is deemed necessary for “destabilization.” Unless one knows what is required for destabilization, this point is useless.

8. The lack of erosion between rock layers[9][10].

If there were signs of erosion, it would not be a layer. Heres an experiment: In a clear glass, place a layer of salt, a layer of chocolate powder, a layer of flour, and a layer of Gatorade mix (or any 4 different color powders). Notice the layers. Now put them in the same glass while you simulate erosion by constantly mixing the top layer of the powder.

There are many places where you don’t see layers. This would have happened during chaotic times of deposition (or times without deposition).

9. Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water procedes through the water cycle it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.

No. The water that gets evaporated out of the ocean is very close to pure water (other than trace elements with which it interacts with in the atmosphere). Therefore freshwater reserves are constantly re-supplied by a fresh clean source: precipitation. Also, most “contamination” in ocean water is due to human pollution, and this has only been significant for the past several hundred years.

10. Paraconformity and unconformity such as that seen at the Grand Canyon disprove the uniformitarian view of earth history.

No geologist believes in a 100% uniformitarian view of earth history, just as no geologist believes that everything happens catastrophically. Overall, things go slow and take time, but there are catastrophic events that disrupt this (i.e.: your Grand Canyon “examples”, major impacts like the one htat killed that dinosaurs, volcanic eruptions)

11. All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,[11] and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

If one is going to acknowledge that isotope data can be used to reliably date things, then they must use it in its entirety. You cant pick and choose when isotope dating is valid and when it is not. There is plenty of isotope data that suggests that the Earth is billions of years old, so why is isotope data acceptable when it argues for a young Earth but not for an old one?

12. The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago![Citation Needed]

I do not know much about strontium samples in water, but I would like to see the source for this data. See the previous response regarding isotope ages. In addition, many minerals that enter the ocean are recycled through seafloor movement and subduction. The seafloor moves away from underwater volcanic chains and into trenches, where it is recycled into the Earth’s mantle.

13. The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.[Citation Needed]

No. The half-life of Uranium 238 is 4.47 billion years. Some elements take even longer to decay. In addition, much of this heat stays in the Earth due to the convection in the outer core and within the lower mantle.

Also, a good amount of the initial heat within the Earth came from the Earth’s accretion (i.e. many separate impacts that eventually formed the Earth). Even before radiation was understood, scientists such as Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the Earth to be about 100 million years with this method. He was obviously wrong, because radiation had not yet been discovered and he could not incorporate radioactive heating into his calculations.

Most of these geology counterexamples are just arguing for a short timespan of individual features (lakes, archs, etc). This is akin to an elderly man getting a pimple, and one declaring, “well the pimple is only a week old, so the man must be only a week old as well!” A tad bit ludicrous, don’t you think?

Biology

All of these are more so counter-examples to evolution rather than an old Earth. I would debate that page as well, but as a geologist I will stick to the things on which I consider myself to understand thoroughly.

1. The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[12] music, personal letters,[13] quality of political debates,[14] the quality of news articles,[15] or any other measure.

Nobody would disagree that the average human today is far more intelligent than one living in the Dark Ages.

If this was true, it is completely irrelevant to the age of the Earth. Humans have been around for less than .05% of the age of the Earth. As fantastic as we like to think we are, humans are pretty insignificant to the overall history of the planet.

2. The age of onset of sexual maturity is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.[16]

Once again, this is absolutely irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

3. The high observed rate of extinctions of species[17] and harmful genetic mutations suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.

The high rate of species extinction is mostly due to humans killing them off.

4. The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying (CNN's Anderson Cooper began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);[18] many celebrities (such as American Idol winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)[18] and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)[19] increasingly experience premature graying or balding.

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth. Actually, this kind of seems irrelevant to age og the human race as well. Gray hair could be due to a number of environmental factors, or the fact that humans are much less physically active than we used to be.

5. The age of onset of cancer is markedly decreasing,[20] suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

6. 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 fossils that have been dated to be hundreds of millions of years old. There are also tree rings which have been dated to be 11,000 years old.

7. The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.

Dogs were tamed by humans from wolves, in a similar way we tamed cattle, sheep, and pigs. This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

8. Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[21]

This is irrelevant to the overall age of the Earth.

9. Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.

Many things died during mass extinction events, but life still continues.

All of this about evolution is completely irrelevant to the Earth’s age. When one talks about the Earth, they are talking about the rock we stand on and what lies beneath, not the plants and animals on the surface. Most geologists couldn’t care less about living organisms, usually they just get in the way when we are trying to get a good view of a rock outcrop.

So there you go. I apologize for using the matter-of-fact tone of voice throughout this. I am used to writing scientific papers where one writes the facts and refutes what they are attempting to disprove without concern for what the reader may be feeling.

Again, I am not trying to disprove Genesis. I just want to help the students using this website to have a better idea of what us geologists think we know about the Earth.

On another note (to all sysops), I am very aware that this very lengthy entry puts me in a major violation of the 90/10 rule. I just became active on CP, and will be adding actual entries to the encyclopedia as I have the time to contribute.[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:29, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuttal ==

Rebuttal is indented below:
::My clarifications do your rebuttals are double indented -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.

The leading theory is that the Moon was formed from a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet (named Theia) about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive amount of debris from this collision that was blasted into orbit formed into the Moon. This theory was proposed during the early 1900s, and was evidence was provided during the Apollo missions (isotope ratios of lunar rocks are identical to terrestrial ones). This theory also explains the Earth’s degree tilt on its rotational axis. Tidal catastrophes would not have been a problem since the Earth had not yet developed an ocean (even if there was an ocean [which there wasn’t this early in Earth’s history] the impact would have vaporized it).

:The lunar landing disproved the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth, or collided with it: the composition of Moon lacks the iron prevalent on the Earth. In addition, the orbit has to be explained. Extrapolate back from current observations, and the Moon was too close too quickly.

::Actually, I'm glad you brought that up, I forgot to mention it. The lack of iron is a great piece of evidence for a collision-caused formation! Its believed that most of the iron on the Earth (the huge majority of it) is at our planet's core. The proposed impact would have stripped the Earth's iron-poor mantle but left the core intact. Furthermore, the massive amount of energy deposited would have left the moon as a molten sphere, wherein most of the iron would sink, as it is among the heaviest common elements.

::Im not really sure where you came up with that the lunar landing disproved this theory, when in fact it actually provided a lot of evidence for it. The moon and Earth were found to have near identical isotope signatures, whereas nearly every other body in the solar system (Mars, Vesta, the Centaurs, etc) have very different compositions.

::Extrapolating from current observations is easy, and it provides further evidence for an old Earth. The Moon is receding from the Earth at about 3.8cm/year. (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html). The Earth Moon average distance is ~385000km. Simply divide one into the other and you get a time of ~10billion years. Which is within the same order of magnitude as the time of Earth/solar system formation. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.

Ignoring the fact that this point uses no citations, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are simply placeholders because we do not fully understand the way the universe works. We haven’t seen them, we just know that something exists in the universe that we don’t understand yet.

:In other words, it's a counterexample but maybe there is some unobserved material that might explain it. Believe what you like, but that's not empirical science.

::I'll admit, I know very close to nothing about "dark matter" and "dark energy." Like i said, Im a geologist, not an astrophysicist. From what I understand, nobody really understands what either of these things are. I definitely agree with you that there is most definitely no empirical evidence (that Im aware of, at least). BUT, I don't see where the evidence is that spiral galaxies are young. It seems like quite an extraordinary claim to say that ALL spiral galaxies appear young (I dont even know what is meant by young, does that mean thousands, millions, or billions of years old?), and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]

The article cited does not actually make the claim that is posted here. Planetary orbits CAN become unstable of long periods of time, but this is obviously not the case for our solar system. Numerous exo-systems have been discovered which appear to be unstable. If our solar system were unstable we wouldn’t be here.

:"If our solar system were unstable" AND IF VERY OLD, THEN "we wouldn't be here." Precisely.

::I don't understand your point. Just because something has a possibility of becoming unstable does not mean that it has to happen. Given that there are at least 10^22 stars in the universe (100 billion stars per galaxy times 150 billion galaxies, both of which are very conservative numbers), there could have been millions of solar systems just like ours but became unstable and failed. Ours just so happens to be one that turned out fine. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be here right now debating its origins. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]

Anybody who has even the most basic knowledge of statistics understands the concept of outliers. There are BILLIONS of galaxies, so a single case (or a few) that is outside the norm does not disprove everything else of the theory. Furthermore, the article that is cited even explains why this galaxy is behaving the way it is, in a way that does not contradict the long timescale.

:No, the "billions and billions" type of argument doesn't help. But that fallacious argument permeates much of the old earth "logic".

::Why not? You failed to provide a reason. It does permeate much of the old Earth "logic", because the Universe is a very, very, very, big place, with billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, many of which have planets. We are one of many (see above) solar systems and locations where life may exist. I think that this is the root problem that many young-Earther-ers have with the concept of an old Earth. The number of possible locations for life in the universe is huge. We (as in organisms on Earth) just so happened to make it through near impossible odds to continue to survive today. Statistically speaking, life likely does exist somewhere else in the universe (and who knows, maybe beings there are having a debate similar to ours right now!!). Even the Vatican agrees (http://spacefellowship.com/news/art15561/vatican-holds-conference-on-extraterrestrial-life.html) -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]

The Sun has actually been burning for billions, not millions, of years. It formed at around the same time as the Earth. But what is this claim based off of? This statement does not mention what the ratio is, or what it should be if one was to claim an “old Earth”.

:Did you research this issue with an open mind, or is your mind already made up? You might try taking the quiz at [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].

::Frankly, it seems that whoever wrote this list in the first place had their mind made up. The few citations that do exist in the article link to scientific literature that does not even support the "counterexamples" raised. But yes, I just took the quiz and posted my answers on my page. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

:I may get to your other points later, if I have time. I suggest you focus on your very best points for discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::I am happy to discuss everything I wrote, although I am better versed in things geology rather than biology or astrophysics. -[[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 21:04, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

::If anybody has major doubts about the points I raised, I'd really suggest taking an introductory geology class at your local community college. Even if it at all related to your career field, it can be really interesting stuff and is extremely useful when deciphering the BS we hear from our politicians every day (especially on issues related to oil reserves, global warming, and so forth).

::Andy, I know that I am not going to change your mind on the subject of an old Earth (perhaps you and I should both take the open mind quiz). My worry is that students may come to CP as a resource, and in viewing a page such as this would be very misled on what scientists actually know about the planet we live on. It is one thing to say that there are many unanswered questions in the geologic sciences, it is another to say that the opinions of over 99% of geologists say is wrong. Keep in mind, these are the very geologists who we trust to mine our metals, drill our oil, and find us fresh water to drink. [[User:AMorg|AMorg]] 20:26, 6 May 2011 (EDT)

== suggestions about two counterexamples ==
I have some suggestions to improve two of these counterexamples. First, I'm not quite sure I understand why "a stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades" implies a young earth. Some clarification would be helpful. Secondly, I'm also not sure why an increase in premature graying implies a young earth. Additionally, the article only cites a couple of famous people who have grayed prematurely to prove this point. Is there any data to support this? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 23:52, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

: Additional evidence is welcome on the premature graying issue, but I don't think it can be seriously doubted. Observations about people graying at younger ages are typical, and the opposite is never heard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:07, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

: As to your other point, it's a matter of seeing a trend stop, which suggests a young rather than old earth. If a river dries up one spring, then it suggests the river was probably not flowing there for thousands of years, but was more likely the result of a rainy winter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:09, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Hello Mr. Schlafly, thank you for responding to my concerns. I still don't see how a trend stopping really implies anything about the age of the earth. The last two popes have not been Italian, and I don't see how that would say anything about the age of the earth. The decline in scientific advances could be due to any number of causes. Perhaps there has been a shift in focus towards making consumer goods within the currently available technologies. Perhaps investment in research has declined. Those are just two possible reasons. If it is true that people are graying earlier, it could be due to increased stress levels. These phenomena have plenty of possible interpretations. I don't see how trends stopping is inconsistent with an Old Earth. Could you perhaps clarify further? [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 00:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

:You make valid points. Would you like to remove it based on your arguments? Feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:11, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion re: extinction rate ==

The extinction rate is far too high to be consistent with an Old Earth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 16 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point was that the values given for current extinction rates are not 'observed' rates. They are based on a few observed extinctions and extrapolated enormously based upon estimates as to the total number of species on the planet (most estimates suggest only a minority are currently known to science). Secondly, it would only be inconsistent if the extinction rate were to have remained constant throughout history relative to the rate of speciation. All the evidence points to a highly variable rate of extinction, with several periods of mass extinctions interspersed with long periods of relatively low extinction. The whole reason so much has been written recently on extinction is that the current estimates are unusually high, with the blame being placed upon human activities, particularly in terms of habitat loss. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 12:14, 16 May 2011 (EDT)