| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
| | ::I wouldn't go quite that far. National Geographic's online masthead characterizes it as a magazine, not a journal; their style guide refers to the publication as "a magazine," or, "the magazine," etc. Insofar as it is a journal in the vernacular, it is just the journal of the National Geographic Society--not a scientific (=research) journal. Their articles are vetted by editors, not by masked review. Sometimes that has come back to bite them--look at the recent chicken dinosaur from China. | | ::I wouldn't go quite that far. National Geographic's online masthead characterizes it as a magazine, not a journal; their style guide refers to the publication as "a magazine," or, "the magazine," etc. Insofar as it is a journal in the vernacular, it is just the journal of the National Geographic Society--not a scientific (=research) journal. Their articles are vetted by editors, not by masked review. Sometimes that has come back to bite them--look at the recent chicken dinosaur from China. |
| | ::That said, I still think National Geographic is a more scholarly, reliable, authoritative source than many cited on this site.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 13:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT) | | ::That said, I still think National Geographic is a more scholarly, reliable, authoritative source than many cited on this site.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 13:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | :::National Geographic is about on a par with Popular Mechanics, but it lacks the academic standards of ''Scientific American''. We need an article on [[scientific methodology]]. We also need articles on [[Peer review]], [[Academic standards]], [[Junk science]] and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:51, 30 April 2007 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| | ::So do you think it's fair to revert it, MiddleMan?-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT) | | ::So do you think it's fair to revert it, MiddleMan?-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT) |
| Line 36: |
Line 38: |
| | | | |
| | The current version spend more time explaining what one isn't than what one is. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:38, 28 April 2007 (EDT) | | The current version spend more time explaining what one isn't than what one is. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:38, 28 April 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | :I have unprotected the article (with the agreement of the protecting sysop). Serious contributions are welcome. Vandalism and ideological contributions presented as true are both not welcome. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 1 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| | == An "Ice Age" is an age, not a theory == | | == An "Ice Age" is an age, not a theory == |
| Line 57: |
Line 61: |
| | ::Umm, it got a rewrite, didn't it? I agree, however, about the "endless 'creation scientists think...' phrasing". Did Santa give you some free time like you asked? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT) | | ::Umm, it got a rewrite, didn't it? I agree, however, about the "endless 'creation scientists think...' phrasing". Did Santa give you some free time like you asked? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT) |
| | :::Ironically, the first rewrite it got was to delete the part that said none ever happened. As opposed to rephrasing it to remove any subtle mocking. Ah, free time. I suspect I will pay for it later, since I don't remember paying in advance. And TANSTAAFL... I love the way the article starts now, though. No subtle mockery in "An Ice Age is a theory that..." just, well, a lack of mastery of English grammar. I'd fix it, you know, this being a wiki and all, but for some reason the article is locked. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:12, 30 April 2007 (EDT) | | :::Ironically, the first rewrite it got was to delete the part that said none ever happened. As opposed to rephrasing it to remove any subtle mocking. Ah, free time. I suspect I will pay for it later, since I don't remember paying in advance. And TANSTAAFL... I love the way the article starts now, though. No subtle mockery in "An Ice Age is a theory that..." just, well, a lack of mastery of English grammar. I'd fix it, you know, this being a wiki and all, but for some reason the article is locked. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:12, 30 April 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | == Biblical references == |
| | + | |
| | + | If we accept the Young Earth Creationist viewpoint, shouldn't an ice age that lasted 700 years after the great flood (more than 10% of recorded human existence) command more than a single quote from Job? [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 16:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | :There are a few other references, if I recall correctly, but I didn't see the point in trying to list them all. And the glaciation was mainly in areas distant from the societies about whom the Bible is written, so not much should be expected. Although the Bible will be historically accurate on areas on which it records details, it's not intended as a comprehensive history of the world, but a history of God's dealings with man, so it is, we could say, a ''selective'' history. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | Ian St John, just a question. How long does it take for a glacier to form? Could enough snow form the glaciers in a 700 timeframe and provide landscape changes like the great lakes?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | == Old earth and evolution == |
| | + | |
| | + | I rolled back the edit of the correct statement that supporters of evolution and an old earth were the first to propose a (massive) Ice Age. That is factually true and should not be deleted. I'll find a reference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | : Andy, I'm a geologist and don't consider evolution to be linked to geology. I can see that someone trying to espouse a particular doctrine might try and link the two but scientifically they should remain separate. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 18:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | :I see you posted a reference to Charles Lyell as support of the evolutionist support for an Ice Age. Yet [[Louis Agassiz]] was the main proponent and he was firmly anti-evolution. Lyell was a reluctant convert to evolution as he was a steady-statist and he was also a late convert to glaciation as it went against his steady state hypothesis. So to use Lyell as the sole justification for stating that ice-ages are related to evolution when there are creationists who believe in an ice age after the flood seems disingenuous. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | ::Ian St John is correct. The Ice Age was first promoted by Louis Agassiz, anti-evolutionist. I've changed the articles accordingly, including putting in a couple of references. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | ==Ice ages and the Greenhouse Theory of global warming== |
| | + | |
| | + | The irony is that evolution supporters always like to talk about the way the evidence leans, and yet they ignore the natural causes of cold and warm periods in geological history. Man did not cause the ice ages, nor did he cause the interglacial periods between them. |
| | + | |
| | + | Atmospheric temperature and "greenhouse gases" are indeed related, but the causality is the reverse of what Greenhouse Theory advocates say. Changes in the concentration of [[carbon dioxide]] in the air did not cause the warming and cooling. It was just the other way around: warming and cooling caused changes in CO2 levels. It takes about 800 years for the CO2 to increase after a period of [[global warming]], an inconvenient fact that [[Al Gore]] decided to leave out of his road show. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:42, 12 November 2008 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | + | ==Ice ages and Creationism== |
| | + | |
| | + | I don't want to step on any toes, but I think that the bulk of scientific investigation on "ice ages" posits that (1) the earth is thousands of millions of years old and (2) there is evidence of glaciers coming down from the North Pole through North America and (3) long periods of cold weather are associated with the spread of this ice and (4) there were "[[interglacial]]" periods of temperate weather. |
| | + | |
| | + | I also gather that there is some disagreement in the [[Creation Science]] community about the timing of ice ages. While most scientists say the cycles of cooling and warming occurred over a many tens of thousands of years, young earth creationists posit an earth created much more recently (less than 10,000 years ago). |
| | + | |
| | + | I'd like to be able to write about this in a way that gives respect to the (various?) creationist views while also accurately reporting the mainstream science. |
| | + | |
| | + | We don't want to censor "non-conservative" views, but I don't suppose we want to endorse atheistic views either. So please, somebody, help me find a balance here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:48, 22 February 2011 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | + | :It's fine to present the atheistic view, but I'd include when it began and why. Having grown up along the Mississippi River, I know that one motivation for the atheistic Ice Age theory is to explain the existence of the Great Lakes and the bluffs along the Mississippi River. One problem: often the bluffs face ''southward'', the opposite direction expected if ice carved them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:14, 22 February 2011 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | + | == References == |
| | + | |
| | + | <references/> |