Difference between revisions of "Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth"

Revision as of 15:12, June 28, 2010 (view source) FrankC (Talk | contribs) m (→‎Solar Fusion) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 00:26, September 16, 2022 (view source) Ethan Parmet (Talk | contribs) m
(346 intermediate revisions by 76 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive 1|Archive 1]].'''''	+	'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive Index|Archive Index]].'''''
	----		----
	<!----- New discussions below this line --->		<!----- New discussions below this line --->
−	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]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 07:37, 20 April 2010 (EDT)
−	== Freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young. ==	+	__TOC__
		+	==Page moved==
		+	Archive index also created.
		+	[[User:JonM|JonM]] 00:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)
−	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.	+	== Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? ==
−	[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)	+	This claim should come out because it's false. Proof that it's false can be found here:[http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=1&d=1]. For example between 1900 and 1909 there were 120 major earthquakes; between 2000 and 2009 there were 99. 100 years and no doubling - in fact, a 20% decrease. It doesn't help our case to make arguments that can be demonstrated to be false in 5 minutes. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 18:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
−	As no one added to the previous discussion, I removed the point. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)	+	:That database appears to depend in part on the amount of property damage, which would distort the results beyond recognition.
−	==  continued existence of fragile natural arches ==	+	:Large earthquakes increased by 20% over the past decade, which fits almost perfectly the estimate of doubling every 40 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:03, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
−	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)	+	::They've doubled every 40 years if you only go back 40 years. If you go back 110 years they've stayed constant or decreased slightly. That database includes ALL major earthquakes; property damage is just one of the criteria you can search on. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:10, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
		+	::Actually I'm wrong. They've increased by 80% in the last 30 years. They've only increased by 20% in the last 40 years. They've stayed constant over the last 110 years. Numbers fluctuate but is always about 100, +/-30, per decade. There is NO INCREASE in major earthquakes and we shouldn't be claiming there is, because we can easily be proven wrong. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:14, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
−	== Great Lakes ==	+	::: The table in the cited reference shows an increase factor of 1.5-4 every 38 years, and recent trends confirm a substantial increase over the past few decades.  The statement seems well-supported by the table and recent data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
−	''The massive [[Great Lakes]] are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago''	+	::::Yes, but the cited reference contradicts its own cited reference, which is the USGS earthquake data (found in the NOAA database.) There has been a substantial increase per decade since 1980, a MINOR increase per decade since 1970 and no increase whatsoever since 1900. The 1970s had exceptionally low earthquake activity and the increase since then is a statistical phenomena known as regression to the mean; it's the same numbers trick that makes it appear that speed cameras placed at accident blackspots reduce accidents. Anyone can cherry-pick figures to prove anything, but the long-term increase simply isn't there. There were more severe earthquakes between 1900 and 1910 than between 2000 and 2010. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 20:13, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
−	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)	+	:::::However you decide to constrain the categorical cutoffs for statistical analysis, they are quite irrelevant to the discussion on the age of the Earth. One need only investigate the actual cause behind any earthquake (crustal strain accumulation) to realize that earthquake frequency in the 20th century is meaningless to this debate. You cannot extrapolate this trend into history, because 1) there is no statistically significant trend in the first place, and 2) there is no '''physical''' basis for doing so. Point number 2 is most pertinent. --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:07, 2 May 2012 (EDT)
−	== Salt Water Lakes ==	+	Today the study ''[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased]'' was published: the authors show that the earthquakes of the last hundred years fit well into the model of a homogeneous Poisson process, i.e., there is no increase of the number of big quakes. ''Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past. '' [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 20 December 2011 (EST)
		+	:AugustO pulls out the heavy artillery: The Poisson distribution! The material on multiple regression and the Poisson distribution were my favorite parts of the last statistics course I took. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:08, 20 December 2011 (EST)
−	''The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]]''	+	::AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004."  Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events."  They need to spend more time studying and learning from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].  Of course there is a plausible mechanism:  increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)
		+	:::Mr. Schlafly (Andy? What's the etiquette when user name = real name?), respectfully, I believe your short quotations from the abstract of the paper distort the context in which they were made. Here's the surrounding context:
		+	{{cquote|We examine the timing of large (magnitude M ≥ 7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks '''The global rate of M ≥ 8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004''', but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences—if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, '''no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events.''' Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.}}
		+	:::(your quotations emphasized). I believe their point is that it isn't enough to simply note that there have been more large earthquakes now than previously. In any random sequence there will always be some strange results, but we can't look at those anomalies in isolation. For example, if we flip a coin a thousand times and it's overall about 50-50, but the last 10 flips are all heads, we shouldn't immediately assume that the coin has recently become biased. Instead, we should consider the likelihood that chance alone could generate such a streak. I don't know enough about the math to evaluate their conclusion, but I think their premise is sound and I think you've mischaracterized it.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:04, 21 December 2011 (EST)
−	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.	+	:@Conservative: just take another course on statistics and you may find out the distinction between the Poisson distribution and a Poisson process.
		+	:@Aschlafly: ''increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else'' that's not a ''plausible physical mechanism'', that's a philosophical statement.
		+	:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)
−	[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:12, 9 May 2010 (EDT)	+	::Entropy is physics, not philosophy.  If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 21 December 2011 (EST)
		+	:::It also relates to the second law of Thermodynamics, which states that Entropy in a system must always increase. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:17, 22 December 2011 (EST)
		+	::::Actually no; it states that entropy in a CLOSED system cannot DECREASE. It doesn't have to increase; it can remain constant. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 17:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)
−	== Reply to above 4 comments ==	+	*If I ask you: ''"How does a grandfather clock work?"'' and you answer with ''"gravity"'', you are somewhat right. But your answer isn't helpful, as you aren't describing a mechanism, you only invoke a general principle. That's not enough, a ''plausible physical mechanism'' has to be described in a little more detail. The same holds for answering the question: ''"What is the reason for earthquakes to occur?"'' with ''"entropy"''.
		+	*Even though the the laws of thermodynamics hold, you can observe places on Earth where the entropy locally decreases - even without the help of an intelligent agent: Look a sky - do you see clouds? They show that water isn't distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. And even though there is the tendency to get to such a uniform distribution, we don't get rid of clouds. Why? Because new clouds are created. How do these abnormalities arise? Because there is an energy gradient, provided by the Sun, powering the water cycle.
		+	*The same is true for processes in the Earth: here, an energy gradient is given by the radioactive elements.
		+	*without these effects, the increasing entropy wouldn't result in more and bigger quakes, but in less and smaller, as disequilibria would be resolved over time.
		+	[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 22 December 2011 (EST)
−	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)	+	:Are you saying that earthquakes are partly caused by radioactive decay? That's interesting. I thought convection currents were the main factor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:24, 22 December 2011 (EST)
		+	::Indeed. But what creates the convection currents? The heat from within the Earth, mainly caused by radioactive decay. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:31, 22 December 2011 (EST)
−	== What's a counterexample? ==	+	:::August, increasing disorder affects all processes.  I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question.  Earthquakes, regardless of their mechanism, reflect the truth that perpetual motion machines are impossible.  The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)
		+	:::::But earthquakes AREN'T increasing. They fluctuate from year to year but there just isn't a long-term increase. The trend is stable. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 14:02, 22 December 2011 (EST)
		+	::::::Exactly. It doesn't seem very helpful to discuss ''how'' or ''why'' earthquakes are increasing in frequency before we determine ''whether'' or ''if'' they're increasing. And the paper cited by AugustO claims that there is no increase, despite recent appearances. So before we talk about radioactive decay or tectonics, we should decide if the study is to be trusted. If it is, there's little benefit to discussing mechanics. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 16:34, 22 December 2011 (EST)
		+	::::In addition, the other examples August listed were not closed systems; tectonics is a closed system. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 12:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)
		+	:::::No, it's not. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
		+	:::::Let me clarify: We have a heat source at the center of the Earth, resulting mainly from decay of radioactive nuclei. We also have a heat sink at the surface (dissipation of energy due to earthquakes, volcano eruptions, a bit of radiation, etc.). Tectonics is caused by the temperature gradient inbetween, an open system. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)
−	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''.	+	*''August, increasing disorder affects all processes.'' As does gravity. This is a general principle, to get a ''physical mechanism'' you need to fill in some details.
−	# it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a ''Young Earth'' and finally:	+	*''I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question.'' I thought my remarks on entropy were clear enough. But let's get back to your question: '''If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.''' Of course, increasing disorder affects the Earth, just not the way you imagine it. [[Perpetual motion machine]]s aren't possible. But an isolated system doesn't become more violent over time, it becomes more boring :-) All the models of things which were thought to be perpetual mobiles by their creators slowly grind to an halt, they don't disrupt themselves in quakes.
−	# the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.	+	*''The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.'' '''That's not a corollary, that is just wrong, and won't become true just by repeating it like a mantra.''' For an earthquake to happen, you have first to built up tension in a place - and that means lowering the entropy locally, using energy. When the earthquake happens, the energy stored is freed, entropy rises again.
		+	[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:48, 22 December 2011 (EST)
−	What are the theories saying? Here are two working definitions...	+	:Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down.  Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''. The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 26 December 2011 (EST)
−	'''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.	+	::*''Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down.'' Well, if I throw a grenade into the aforementioned grandfather-clock, we get a fine example of such a disruption.  But machines (and mechanism) are generally  not halted that way.
		+	::*''Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''.'' Do you expect me to know ''why'' the laws of thermodynamics hold?
		+	::*''The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.'' Who says so? The Earth is gradually slowing down, the heating through radioactive elements is declining (though ever so slowly, as the half-lives of the elements involved are so great). Why do you expect a more volatile behavior? Again, simply saying ''"entropy"'' isn't enough, you should describe a mechanism: the current model of continental plates driven by convection currents doesn't lead to such a conclusion.
		+	::*Will you ever give us  a similar mechanism explaining what you think is an increase in the rate of earthquakes? I doubt it. It's like the whole sad  [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive49#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|ἰδού-affair]]: you may have convinced yourself that you gave satisfying answers to all question, when in fact those were only superficial - or plain wrong (I'm still waiting for a scholarly source which backs up your translation!)
		+	::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 26 December 2011 (EST)
−	'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped as we find it now by the Great Flood.	+	:::Perpetual motion machines are not impossibly simply because of friction, or dispersion of energy.  Disorder increases and that is the fundamental reason that perpectual motion machines are impossible.  Many of the finest systems imaginable eventually fail for reasons unrelated to energy dispersion or friction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 1 January 2012 (EST)
−	So, how do the examples fit in?	+	::::Please give some examples! ¨[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)
−	: 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)	+	===Conclusion===
		+	*There is no evidence for a doubling of earthquakes every 40 years.
		+	*In fact, there is evidence that the rate of major earthquakes hasn't changed over the last hundred years.
		+	*Aschlafly's  proposed ''"mechanism"'' (increasing entropy) wouldn't result in an increase of major earthquakes, so even from this ''"model"'' we wouldn't expect to see such an increase.
−	::I'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:	+	I alerted Aschlafly to these points (in my answer above) at his talk-page and he [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=947978&oldid=947963 is aware of this comment] ;-)
−	::*'''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?	+	Now, I'll outcomment this ''"counterexample"''. Please keep in mind that deleting ''false'' information is not an act of censorship!
−	::[[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)	+	[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:00, 26 December 2011 (EST)
−	=== The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them ===	+	[[User:ScottDG]] reverted my edit, stating: ''Open your mind, August. Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me.'' I don't think that this is enough to justify the reversion of a well-substantiated edit. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)
−	''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.	+	:Is it just me or do "Open your mind" and "Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me" seem to be a bit on the contradictory side? In any case well done for getting that incorrect claim out of the article, and let's hope it stays out. --[[User:Uxbridge|Uxbridge]] 13:49, 26 December 2011 (EST)
−	=== The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ===	+	== Rates ==
−	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)	+	I find it interesting to note that some of the attempts to disprove the Old Earth theory are based upon assuming that the rate by which various factors change are constant. This does seem troubling when a core element of a number of articles ([[Old Earth]], [[Age of the Earth]], etc) is an attack on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant.
−	::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.	+	Just a few examples include: There's the assumption that the moon is receding from the Earth at a constant rate, that human intelligence has declined at a constant rate, that the rate of the decline of biodiversity on Earth has been constant, and that the rate at which land has fallen into the oceans has been constant. This does somewhat undermine the points this article is trying to make. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 11:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)
−	::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.	+	== Dog Races ==
−	::: As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here:	+	Dog races are somewhat artificial creations: a garden which isn't tended to runs to seed, a building not kept in shape becomes a ruin. Nothing of this is an example of an Old Earth, just for relatively recent neglect. That should be obvious.
−	::::1.  it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.	+	[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)
−	:::::This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility.	+	== too many repeated removals of certain entries are being done; discuss first on talk page ==
−	::::2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally:	+	The problem aren't the removals: these are generally discussed here on the talk-page. The real problem is the unilateral reinsertion of debunked examples without any discussion.
−	:::::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.	+	[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)
−	::::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.	+	== Historical Counterexamples ==
−	:::::This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)	+	''The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''
−	::::::''implausible ice age theory''? What's implausible about that? It just doesn't fit your YEC preconceptions.	+	*There are tree rings which are older than 3000 B.C (see [[dendrochronology]]) - I think that for the [[bristlecone pine]]s you will find a fully anchored chronology of 8,500 years - going back to 6000 B.C.
−	::::::# Yes, I include the requirement of plausibility. What's the point of implausible counterexamples?	+	*There are many reports about older clothing, woven textiles are date to be from 6000 B.C. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/science/site-in-turkey-yields-oldest-cloth-ever-found.html?pagewanted=all NYTimes 1993: Site in Turkey Yields Oldest Cloth ever Found]</ref>
−	::::::# Is there a third theory I haven't heard of? If the Earth isn't young, it is old.	+	*And there are other older remnants of civilizations, i.e. [[Lascaux]]
−	::::::# ''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)	+	But of course you can claim that these things can't be dated probably, as no one of the contemporaries has ''written'' about them: this reduces your point to:
−	::::::::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:	+	''The oldest written documents are no older than about 3000 B.C.''
−	::::::::'''1: ''' '''C &rArr; ~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 &rArr; YET'''	+
−	::::::::And from ''1'', one gets	+
−	::::::::'''3: ''' ''' OET &rArr; ~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.	+	I'll change the page accordingly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:55, 29 January 2012 (EST)
−	::::::::[[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.	+	:These claims that you cite are far from persuasive and even reinforce the underlying point:  the oldest direct evidence of life is consistent with an Young Earth, not an Old Earth.  Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, and at any rate even it admitted that "no other piece of prehistoric cloth produced earlier than 6000 to 6500 B.C. had been found anywhere in the world."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 29 January 2012 (EST)
−	[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)	+	::''Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, '' That is misleading (at least), as the correction had nothing to do with the content of the article, but the illustration:
		+	{{cquote|'''Correction:''''' July 19, 1993, Monday An artist's rendering in Science Times on Tuesday, showing the weaving method believed to have been used in the earliest known piece of cloth, depicted the pattern incorrectly. The pairs of weft, or horizontal, strands probably wound around each other as well as around the warp, or vertical, strands.}}
		+	::Older clothing has been found, made from leather of fur. I just gave this example of woven cloth, which contradicts your statement in the article. Please change the article accordingly, as it is protected. Thanks.
		+	::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)
−	== Lakes again ==	+	:::I'm not aware of any "Old Earth" finds of '''''any''''' clothing, and your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)
−	*It was repeatedly explained why the ''Great Lakes'' are no countexample to an Old Earth.	+	'' your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation'' - as does your statement in the article, BTW! Could you add some? And have a look [http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2002/03/21/excavations-eastern-europe-reveal-ancient-human-lifestyles here]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:49, 30 January 2012 (EST)
−	*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)	+	== References ==
		+	<references />
−	::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)	+	== Earth's magnetic field ==
−	::: 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)	+	Mr. Schlafly, you wrote: "The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years". I don't see how this contradicts the scientists' hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old, since they think that the magnetic field regularly reverses itself [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ link source].  I think the readers would benefit from a clarification of this point.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:43, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
		+	:Agreed. The article you cited, Mr. Schlafly, states that ''"this could imply a reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields"''.
		+	{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
		+	|-
		+	! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | <font size="2" face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color="Silver">[[user:Brenden|Brenden]].</font>
		+	|-
		+	| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
		+	*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
		+	*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
		+	*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|<font color="blue">log</font>]]
		+	|} 14:00, 27 April 2012 (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.	+	::If magnetic fields would reverse themselves over thousands of years, then that is even more evidence for a young earth.  Scientists think that many species, from turtles to birds, rely on a constant magnetic field to find their way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
		+	:::What precludes the possibility that the population changes over time as the magnetic field slowly changes to adapt to the new magnetic field?  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:18, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
−	''But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also.''	+	::::Scientists claim that a moderate magnetic field is essential for many species to find their way around.  If that magnetic field disappears, then those species go extinct.  They wouldn't exist today.  It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
		+	:::::I'm no evolutionist, but Andy I think in this case you are severely underestimating nature's (God given) ability to adapt and find a way to survive.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 20:50, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
−	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:	+	::::::That "God given" ability requires a young Earth.  Many, many species go extinct '''''every year''''' - something that is also downplayed by people who deny God's existence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
−	*[[South America]]: none	+	:::::::And many more continue to thrive, despite changes to their environment. I am surprised that you underestimate God's creation, Mr. Schlafly.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 22:06, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
−	*[[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:	+	::::::::I don't underestimate God's creation.  [[Entropy]] is part of it; the [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)|Book of Hebrews]], perhaps the most intellectual book in all of history, explains that God created the earth and the universe to wear out. See [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11]]. God presumably does not plan to spend eternity on this particular creation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
−	* 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 (&asymp; 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.	+	== A mathematician's take ==
−	: 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}}	+	Hello,
		+	I find this to be an interesting article, but I must take issue with the following claim:
−	::''None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.''	+	<blockquote>
−	::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 &asymp; 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 &asymp; 70,000 years ago.	+	If each of 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%.
−	::''Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.''	+	</blockquote>
−	::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)	+	I understand what you are trying to do here (0.9^43=0.01). However, you a making the assumption that all these observations are independent, when in reality, they are likely highly positively correlated. Instead of calculating Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B), you should be doing Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B|A).
−	== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==	+	For example, in this article, I count four entries in the "Geology" section that talk about the persistency of bodies of water. Under your math, these four alone indicate that there is only a 65% chance of an old earth. However, these three are likely to be highly, or even perfectly, correlated. If we assume they are all perfectly correlated (which they are not, but just for illustration), then there is a 90% chance of an old earth.
−	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)	+	Another way of looking at it is from the other perspective. Let's say Radiocarbon dating and universe expansion calculations point to an old earth, and only have a 1% of being true. Under your math, their is only a 98% chance of a young earth. However, that means there is only a 99% chance of the earth being young OR old, but since those two events completely specify the probability space, it should be a 100% chance. But, since we are wrongly assuming independence, our math is wrong.
−	: 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 don't think it's necessarily a bad point you are trying to make here. The math, however, is flat wrong, and we shouldn't give a quantification for something we have no way of quantifying.
−	::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]].	+	Just my two cents. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (EDT)
−	::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).	+	:You raise an interesting point; a lack of independence among variables does affect the probability of the outcome.  But that effect is offset by the greater likelihood (more than 10%) that those indicators of a young earth are correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)
−	::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)	+	::I would like to come in on the side of EricAlstrom here. For one thing, his analysis of your use of probability theory is bang on, and in no way does your response answer his points. Even deeper, your basis for "the likelihood of the counterexamples being greater than 10%" is based purely on your own opinion. Why exactly are these counterexamples more likely to be correct than radio carbon dating is to be false? [[User:DanPW| Dan W]] 5 May 2012
−	::: 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.	+	== AGW if true, would prove a young earth ==
		+	If the earths systems were so unstable that a very very small amount of carbon released by humans could disrupt them, then they could not have lasted billions of years. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 13:44, 4 May 2012 (EDT)
−	::: 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)	+	== Only 99% certain? ==
−	:::*both could be false, both aren't simulated globally	+	I see you have doubts about your chosen theory Ashafly. I would have thought a Bible believing Christian like yourself would have no doubts about the Creation account as told in Genesis. What contradictions in the Bible have convinced you to believe that the Biblical account may not be 100% true? [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:29, 4 May 2012 (EDT)
−	:::*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))	+	:EJames, entries on a wiki are collaborative efforts.  Also, this particularly entry does not utilize [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:55, 4 May 2012 (EDT)
−	:::: 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)
−	== All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages ==	+	::What do you mean? I don't understand about your statement about 'utilizing faith'. Is the Biblical account of Creation 100% true or not? If you feel you can't commit to 100% you must have serious doubts. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)
−	# 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.	+	== Template ==
−	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!).	+	The page is protected from editing. Could a sysop replace the list in ''See also'' with <nowiki>{{Counterexamples}}</nowiki>? [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 11:13, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
		+	:Done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:18, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
−	Conservapedia's article on [[carbon dating]] highlights the fact that it can't be used to determine ages older than 50,000 years.	+	== Magnetic Field of the Earth ==
−	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.	+	In this article there is a claim that the earth's magnetic field is weakening so fast, that extrapolating back in time, there is no room for an old earth since the intensity would have melted the earth. However, this isn't true. Earth's magnetic field changes strength and even reverses sometimes, (Gee et al. 2000; Gubbins et al. 2006) so this claim should be removed.
−	[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:08, 5 June 2010 (EDT)	+	== An increase in the frequency of large earthquakes is not a counterexample to an old Earth ==
−	<references/>	+	If large earthquakes are getting more frequent then there will be more of them in the future, and there were fewer of them in the past.  This suggests that the Earth cannot exist for much longer in the future.  But it doesn't say anything about how long the Earth has existed in the past.  So this is clearly a bad example.  I'll remove it if no-one objects. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 22:45, 11 February 2013 (EST)
−	== Answer to Aschlafy ==	+	I've removed the counterexample based on the growing number of large earthquakes.  If we compare it with some of the other counterexamples:
		+	* The intelligence of humans is rapidly '''declining''', therefore the Earth is young.
		+	* The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
		+	* The age of onset of cancer is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
		+	* The number of natural, pure-bred dogs is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
		+	* The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
		+	* The flow of water in the Colorado River is '''decreasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
		+	* The frequency of large earthquakes is '''increasing''', therefore the Earth is young.
		+	it's clear that it doesn't fit the pattern.  It looks like it was just a mistake. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:32, 13 February 2013 (EST)
−	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? ''	+	It turns out that I can't edit [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Could someone else please do it. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 16:35, 13 February 2013 (EST)
−	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.	+	:The earthquake counterexample does fit the pattern because it shows the Earth is not in a steady state, but is in a period of transition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:28, 14 February 2013 (EST)
		+	::If earthquakes come in cycles, then it would not argue either way. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:27, 15 February 2013 (EST)
−	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'':	+	::So the Earth is in a period of change, ok, but you can't conclude that before this period of change there was nothing because the Earth didn't exist.  Maybe there was a period when the frequency of large earthquakes decreased, or stayed the same.  Why should this 40-year doubling go on unchanged for 6000 years?  And this counterexample definitely '''is''' different from the others, in that something is '''increasing''', whereas in all the others something is '''decreasing'''.  I think this counterexample is much weaker than the others, and should be dropped. --[[User:Occultations|Occultations]] 17:13, 15 February 2013 (EST)
−	*Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.	+	== Young Earth ==
−	*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.	+	If it takes only one counterexample being true to disprove Old Earth theories, it must also take only one counterexample to disprove Young Earth theories. You might want to address that.  I'm just saying......
−	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.	+	== The interior of the earth is as hot as the sun -- far hotter than atheists thought ==
−	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:	+	*How is a ''core temperature of about 6,000°C, give or take 500°C'' '''''far hotter''''' than 5,000°C?
		+	*A second question: Andrew Schlafly, you wrote that ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge predicted this, as Earth and heat were created prior to the Sun.'' What do you mean by this? How does this prediction work?
		+	--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:21, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
−	*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago	+	== Fast Erosion ==
−	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.	+	Mountains erode faster than atheist geology previously thought - "no speed limit".
		+	[http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/01/scienceshot-fastest-mountain-erosion-record]
		+	Add that to list perhaps? [[User:JamesWS|JamesWS]] 20:20, 17 January 2014 (EST)
−	To prevent this, you should perhaps elaborate the examples, and give refutations for the explanations of geologists.	+	:Terrific discovery.  Please add your insight to the list!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 17 January 2014 (EST)
−	[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)	+	== History Section ==
−	: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)	+	The example listed is false, and thus has been removed. There are many examples, but here, for example, is a 7000 year old mask.
		+	[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_%22Bible_et_Terre_Sainte%22]
		+	:Did the mask have a date carved on it or do we have to rely on unreliable old earth dating methods? See: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 18 October 2014 (EDT)
		+	What would give a carved on date, or any of the examples listed (with the exception of tree rings), credibility and accuracy?
−	== Observations on some deceitful points in this article ==	+	== Expansion of the universe ==
−	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:	+	"The expansion of the universe is accelerating, something that would not occur if the Big Bang had happened billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent"
−	*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.	+	I accept the expansion of the universe is accelerating, but why should that mean the universe is only 6000 years old? It would be equally valid for it to be hundreds of thousands of years old. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 09:54, 24 September 2016 (EDT)
−	*The earth's magnetic field is indeed declining, but when I go to that NASA site, in the ''same, exact'' paragraph, it says:	+	== Stalemate of scientific discoveries ==
−	{{Cquote|There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million years <u>according to geological evidence</u>. 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.}}	+	The point about scientific discoveries in the last several decades does not make any sense as to why this suggests a young earth. Can someone please explain it better or I shall remove it.
−	.. but then the article has:	+	== Based on erosion rates, Niagara Falls is known to be less than 15,000 years old, even as admitted by atheistic scientists who believe in an Old Earth ==
−	''Presently, Earth's magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. ... Not comparable to an old earth''	+	How is this a counterexample? Waterfalls are thought to be relatively young, compared with the lifetime of a river. And even an old earth is to be expected to have some young features as an old man can sprout a new pimple: that does not make him an adolescent again. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:30, 8 January 2018 (EST)
		+	:The Niagara Falls were created by the recession of glaciers during the last glacial period 12,000 years ago, as were the Great Lakes. The fact that creationists think that this is an argument against the old Earth is laughable. [[User:GlaciersYouIDiots|GlaciersYouIDiots]] ([[User talk:GlaciersYouIDiots|talk]]) 02:13, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	::And your evidence is ...???  [[Atheistic science]] is so circular in its reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 02:44, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	{{Warning collapse
		+	|reason=All criticism of the Party is banned. Offenders will be sent to the gulag.
		+	|content=:::[https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article/79/7/889/6360/late-pleistocene-glacial-erosion-along-the-niagara Here's your evidence], you dumbass denialist. You could have easily found it yourself. Although it may require you to read through something without skimming, so I don't know if you can handle it. Also, banning people just because they poke holes in your arguments, shows how little you actually care about things such as the Freedom of Speech. [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|You claim]] "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons", what a crock of shit. [[User:NotScaredOfScience|NotScaredOfScience]] ([[User talk:NotScaredOfScience|talk]]) 16:49, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	::::Also, why do you dumbasses think artificially bred dogs are a rebuttal to the Earth being 4.5 billion years old? [[User:NotScaredOfScience|NotScaredOfScience]] ([[User talk:NotScaredOfScience|talk]]) 16:51, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	::::: Generally, we block for incivility after a warning. If you want your comments to have any credence or consideration, please remove the incivility and personal contempt you express toward people with differing views. It only discredits yourself and limits your ability to speak. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 17:32, September 19, 2021 (EDT
		+	Also, "The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood." You're telling me that none of you miscreant nincompoops know what the Great Basin is? If you have that little knowledge of geology, why are you dastardly asshole denialists making any claims about it? You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts, and this page is full of lies. At least don't pretend that you give a solitary fuck about science when you ignore anything that suggests your 4,000 year old fairy tale might not be 100% completely perfectly accurate. You don't even have any pointed criticisms of the fucking methodology of any of this besides "OH NO, NOT BASED ON THE BIBLE!!11!1!111!!1111!1" Also, if you can't fucking handle the word fuck, then you are just a bunch of sheltered immature 10-year-olds who have never been exposed to the real world, but then again I suppose that that is the only part of this complete and utter fucking shitshow that is this wiki. If you refuse to engage with these points and instead complain about "civility" (but why the fuck should ''I'' be civil when your stupidly moronic rhetoric is resulting in the destruction of the world via climate change and many queer teenagers killing themselves) then you will be proving that all of my points are right but you motherfucking bastards are much too cowardly to admit it. [[User:GreatBasinLakeExpert|GreatBasinLakeExpert]] ([[User talk:GreatBasinLakeExpert|talk]]) 19:33, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	:Please refrain from incivility, profanity, and disparaging references toward other users.  Take this as a warning. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 19:38, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
−	Kind of deceptive and misleading, if not blatantly lying, no?	+	:Admin/Moderator comment: Obviously, we have some editors who feel strongly about this issue and debate. My question: Why are they incapable of expressing their point of view rationally?  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 19:50, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	::Yeah, why don't you tell that crap to Justin Aaberg, Leelah Alcorn, Taylor Alesana, Lui Aquino Aquino, Jadin Bell, Brenda Benet, Blake Brockington, Eylül Cansın, Wiktor, Dora Carrington, Leslie Cheung, Tyler Clementi, Hart Crane, Brad Davis, Denice Denton, Thomas M. Disch, Justin Fashanu, Robert "Bobby" Wayne Griffith, Ash Haffner, Sarah Hegazi, Jamie Hubley, William Inge, Kim Ji-hoom, Adam Kizer, Zuzia Kobałka, Michał Koch, Cameron Langrell, Andrew Leach, Elizabeth Lowe, Billy Lucas, Zander Mahaffey, F. O. Matthiessen, Milo Mazurkiewicz, Alexander McQueen, Markus Middleton, Jamel Myles, Kent North, Avinshu Patel, Arthur Pelham-Clinton, Mike Penner, Kyler Prescott, Jamey Rodmeyer, Melonie Rose, Nigel Shelby, Channing Smith, Bobby Steele, Dominik Szymański, Braxton Taylor, Alan Turing, Tyrone Unsworth, Sergio Urrego, Carlos Vigil, Seth Walsh, William Walters, Kenneth Weishuhn, James Whale, Jim Wheeler, Tobi Wong, Ya-Hui Yang, and Kacperek Zasada? Oh wait, you can't, they are all dead because of assholes like you spreading pseudoscientific bullshit about how being queer is supposedly a choice and evil. At least I'm not a killer, you are the ones that should be banned for having blood on your hands. Also, apparently the word "blood" makes you more uncomfortable than the deaths of queer teenagers. Fuck you all. If there really is a hell, you will be the ones burning inside it for all eternity. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:07, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
−	Thanks for your feedback, [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 15:45, 8 June 2010 (EDT)	+	:::Relax. Take a deep breath. Exhale. Try to be coherent. Never heard of any of those people, and don't have a clue what you're rattling on about. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 20:32, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	::::You do realize Google is a thing you ninny? And thanks for showing a first-grade level of reading comprehension. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:38, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	:::::I'm really confused now. Is the argument that certain people were killed because of their views on Old Earth creation? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 20:46, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	:::::Also, it's not a good idea to undo the actions of Sysop. That can and likely may earn you sanctions. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 20:47, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	People died because of lamebrains like you ignoring any science that went against a 4,000 year old fairy tale. Whether it's on climate change, queer issues, or medicine, nitwits ignoring science in favor of fairy tales always results in disaster. Try telling someone from Kiribati with a straight face that global warming isn't real when their houses are sinking underwater. Try telling any of the people mentioned above that being queer is a choice or a sin. Meanwhile, you don't even fucking acknowledge the existence of glaciers 12,000 years ago or the Great Basin. How am I supposed to take you seriously? I would laugh at you if it weren't for the fact that people are dying due to your denialist bullshit. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:54, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	:Also, remember the point of this thread. None of you assholes have fucking acknowledged the evidence that glaciation created the Niagara Falls! You are all a bunch of lying, cheating, authoritarian dishonest denialist bastards! [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 20:57, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	:{ec} People died cause they believed in Old Earth creation.  That, I assume is what you mean. You apparently intend to imply that they were murdered because they believe in Old Earth creation. Am I understanding this point correctly now?
		+	:Please reserve your anti-God rants for the appropriate page. Also, please refrain from namecalling, personal attacks, and bigotted generalisations. Thanks.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup>
		+	:Last warning on profanity and incivility. Too bad, cause according to WP, there has only been one hate crime prosecution for the murder of a homosexual ever. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 21:00, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	::How am I the one being uncivil when you are the one trivializing the deaths of people? And you still aren't engaging with the evidence, but instead making a vague death threat. It's rich that you ask people to refrain from "bigotted generalisations" (you can't even fucking spell properly) when you have so many bigoted articles on queer people. Those people took their lives because of harassment from people like you, all because you take the words of a fucking fairytale over well-supported science. Yet when these people constantly die, you never take the hint. Maybe learn to have some fucking empathy and you wouldn't be such a stupid evil asshole. [[User:NotAKiller|NotAKiller]] ([[User talk:NotAKiller|talk]]) 21:09, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	:::So you are making the claim that people have been murdered, by Christians presumably, because they think the Earth is 40 billion years old? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 21:29, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	:::Bye. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 21:29, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	:You're so fucking stupid. ''Nobody'' believes the Earth is 40 billion years old, it's 4.6 billion, you dumbass. Also, you have a lower level of reading comprehension than a preschooler if you believe that is what I'm saying. Well, I guess that explains why you are a homophobic transphobic queerphobic denialist idiot. [[User:ActualSmartPerson|ActualSmartPerson]] ([[User talk:ActualSmartPerson|talk]]) 21:35, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	::You've mastered profanity but your grasp of science, rather than [[atheistic science]], is less impressive!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:26, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	:::You do realize that that is not a fucking counterargument? Still none of you have disputed anything from my source. [[User:ActualSmartPerson|ActualSmartPerson]] ([[User talk:ActualSmartPerson|talk]]) 22:55, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	::::Okay, Got all that. Now connect the dots between the age of the Earth, the depth of mountain lakes, and the suicide of gay teenagers, please.  Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 23:01, September 19, 2021 (EDT)
		+	::::[https://youtu.be/0Wi8Fv0AJA4 Times up].  Let me rephrase the question. If I blow my brains out because some people think the world is flat and I do not, do they have blood on their hands?  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 01:29, September 20, 2021 (EDT)
		+	Because assholes like you ignore science that disagrees with your fairytale, you promote false science that can cause harm, including pseudoscientific narratives about homosexuality that result in the harassment and later suicide of many queer teenagers due to people who believe in the false narratives. Believing that the Earth is 600 years old is another such pseudoscientific belief. But back to the main points, which was that claiming the Niagara falls aren't older than 15,000 years is a fucking moronic argument even by the abysmal standards of YEC, since nobody believes that it is. Same with the Great Salt Lake, which is the way it is due to its location in the Great Basin, where no water flows to the ocean, which shows that there is no need for a flood to create such a lake. This is a basic fact that you are taught in the first fucking year of geology class, and it shows how low your standards are. I'll give you one bit of genuine advice, though: instead of starting with a conclusion (e.g. the universe is 6000 years old) and interpreting all evidence to fit said conclusion, start with the evidence (e.g. all the sediments, signs of erosion, etc.) and use that to come to a conclusion, as that is how science works. [[User:ActualSmartPerson|ActualSmartPerson]] ([[User talk:ActualSmartPerson|talk]]) 01:38, September 20, 2021 (EDT)
		+	:And also you queerphobic dumbass, you do not equate years of harassment and nonacceptance because of who you are from everyone you know to someone disagreeing with you. The fact you think that homosexuality is an idea you can disagree with instead of a part of someone's identity like their sex, ethnicity, etc. which they are unable to change demonstrates that you fall into those pseudoscientific beliefs. [[User:ActualSmartPerson|ActualSmartPerson]] ([[User talk:ActualSmartPerson|talk]]) 01:38, September 20, 2021 (EDT)
		+	::As Trey Gowdy said to Peter Strzok, that's a good answer to a question nobody asked. Again now, if I blow my brains out cause you think I'm homophobic, although I know you are wrong, do you have blood on your hands? Now, please make some semblance of an effort to formulate your response logically and rationally. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup>
		+	You're still not fucking responding to what this was originally about, and the reference to queer teenagers was more about how it was hypocritical of you guys to ban me for supposed incivility. And the problems with your ignoramus comparison is number one you haven't been harassed for being homophobic and number two being homophobic isn't part of your identity. You fucking choose to be a fucking homophobic nincompoop, but you cannot fucking choose to be gay. Now go take your idiotic homophobic rhetoric back to the Westboro Baptist Church. [[User:ActualSmartPerson|ActualSmartPerson]] ([[User talk:ActualSmartPerson|talk]])
		+	:Okay, let's begin at the beginning. Early up I said profanity, incivility, and bigotted generalizations don't further or clarify anything you are talking about.  Secondly, I did not block you, on the contrary, I allowed you to spew your unscientific venom and hate here for the past several hours. Thirdly, I made no such claims about anything you are talking about.  I appeared here as a Moderator, and have attempted to persuade you to engage in rational discussion and argument.  Fourthly, your leap from discussing the age of the earth to making accusations about users here being responsible for suicides is patently absurd, and you have been asked several times to explain what on God's green earth you are talking about.  Fifthly you apparently have some anger directed at God. Sixthly, you apparently transfer your anger toward God to your fellow creatures.
−	===Another observation===	+	:Now, let's leave aside the question of connecting the dots between mountain lakes, the suicide of teenagers, and the age of the earth, for the time being. Is there any one of those particular subjects you would like to discuss? Remember, this is the Old Earth talk page. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 02:23, September 20, 2021 (EDT)
−	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:	+	So you're still fucking not fucking talking about the fucking problems with this fucking article that I fucking keep bringing up (and you still can't fucking spell "bigoted"). And obviously, I don't fucking hate God, that would be as fucking pointless as hating fucking unicorns, but I do fucking hate homophobic bigots like you. I put up a source that was published in a fucking public journal that details why we know that the Niagara Falls were formed by glaciers and you still have not fucking engaged with it, preferring to ask fucking stupid questions only brought up by a fucking bad faith reading of my fucking posts. If you don't want to be fucking responsible for queer suicides then delete all your fucking articles on homosexuality that are all so fucking bigoted. Saying the word fuck won't fucking kill anyone but fucking promoting the fucking lie that you can fucking choose to be gay will. Fuck you. [[User:ActualSmartPerson|ActualSmartPerson]] ([[User talk:ActualSmartPerson|talk]]) 02:34, September 20, 2021 (EDT)
−	*Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.	+	:Alright, how you link Niagra Falls to homophobia is anybody's guess. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 02:48, September 20, 2021 (EDT)
−	*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)	+	:So, let me distill the scientific facts we've learned from this discussion: Niagra Falls, being somewhere between 15,000 years and 4.6 billion years old, is not responsible for the suicides of gay teenagers. Is this an accurate summary? Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 03:04, September 20, 2021 (EDT)
		+	Read the fucking scientific journal I linked, dumbass, and then you'll know how old the Niagara Falls are and how they were formed. Also, apparently you still don't fucking know what the Great Basin is. [[User:ActualSmartPerson|ActualSmartPerson]] ([[User talk:ActualSmartPerson|talk]]) 13:50, September 20, 2021 (EDT)
		+	:Nah, don't think so. I generally stick to rational science and argument, and you have utterly failed to convince anyone you are capable to discern what rational science is. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 19:14, September 20, 2021 (EDT)
		+	::You do realize that's not a fucking counterargument? Explain the flaws in the methodology of the study I linked if you want to disprove it, dumbass. You do not just fucking dismiss it out of hand because "oh no, it might expose me to new ideas, how horrible!" Under our current understanding of the Earth, we can understand how earthquakes and volcanoes work and where they are likely to appear. What the fuck can your creationist "science" predict? [[User:ActualSmartPerson|ActualSmartPerson]] ([[User talk:ActualSmartPerson|talk]]) 19:24, September 20, 2021 (EDT)
		+	:::I can't believe you're senselessly raging over a mere internet debate basically everyone else can keep their cool on. You remind me of a few lunatics over at RationalWiki. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 19:30, September 20, 2021 (EDT)
		+	::If the recommendation to read a certain article in a certain publication came from a rational person, I might consider it. All you've done is convince me it's a waste of time. Worse case scenario, I may end up having thought processes and patterns similar to your own. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 19:35, September 20, 2021 (EDT)
		+	Just because someone speaks in a you that you don't fucking like doesn't mean they're irrational. People who swear are fucking happier, after all. And fucking smarter too, for they at least know what the fucking Great Basin is unlike you cretins. And if you had thought processes similar to mine, at least you wouldn't be a homophobic asshole cunt. [[User:Earth&#39;s4.5*10^9Years|Earth&#39;s4.5*10^9Years]] ([[User talk:Earth&#39;s4.5*10^9Years|talk]]) 20:33, September 20, 2021 (EDT)}}
		+	== Really? ==
−	:::Hopefully I can address a few of your concerns here, Douglas.	+	It's not that I'm an atheist or anything, but I don't understand why God couldn't have created the Earth billions of years ago. After all, even 10,000 years seems rather a short amount of time, doesn't it? It doesn't say specifically in the Bible the age of the Earth, and though we could try to calculate it based on dates given in the Book, that's also rather difficult and not very precise. All I'm saying is, some Young Earth Creationists think the Earth is just 6,000 years old. That's just 3 times the time that's elapsed since Christ's birth. Just 3! It just seems short to me.
−	:::*''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&mdash;for lack of a better word (heh)&mdash;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|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 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)	+	:Intuition doesn't really help on this issue.  What "seems" to be about this is usually what is taught in school or promoted by the media.
−	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]]<sub>[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]]</sub> 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><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 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)	+
−		+
−	== 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 ==	+	:Everything declines over time due to the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], and 1 billion years of decline would not be pretty.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:32, 13 February 2020 (EST)
−	''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.''	+	== Other Examples of Premature Graying ==
−	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)	+	I do not seem to have permission to edit the article, but could Ethan Klein of h3h3 and Claire Saffitz of Condé Nast be added as premature grayers? [[User:Ethan Parmet|Ethan Parmet]] ([[User talk:Ethan Parmet|talk]]) 23:08, July 21, 2022 (EDT)
−	== Geothermal Activity ==	+	== Chimpanzee Statistics ==
−	''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.''	+	The source in the genetics section for chimpanzees being more genetically distinct than humans is not cited. Can someone please add in this original source below?
		+	https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2012-03-02-chimps-show-much-greater-genetic-diversity-humans
		+	[[User:Ethan Parmet|Ethan Parmet]] ([[User talk:Ethan Parmet|talk]]) 23:11, July 21, 2022 (EDT)
		+	:I added your superb citation. I also unlocked the entry so you can edit it.  I'm not familiar with the individuals you mention above so I did not make that proposed edit in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:14, July 22, 2022 (EDT)
		+	::Thank you very much! [[User:Ethan Parmet|Ethan Parmet]] ([[User talk:Ethan Parmet|talk]]) 14:31, July 22, 2022 (EDT)
−	Why not? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 28 June 2010 (EDT)	+	== Reference 34 ==
		+	I updated reference 34 to be an archive.org version of the link, as the original one didn't seem to be working anymore. [[User:Ethan Parmet|Ethan Parmet]] ([[User talk:Ethan Parmet|talk]]) 20:26, September 15, 2022 (EDT)

---

Latest revision as of 00:26, September 16, 2022

For older discussions, see the archives: Archive Index.

---

Page moved

Archive index also created. JonM 00:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)

Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years?

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

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

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

They've doubled every 40 years if you only go back 40 years. If you go back 110 years they've stayed constant or decreased slightly. That database includes ALL major earthquakes; property damage is just one of the criteria you can search on. --MandyC 19:10, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Actually I'm wrong. They've increased by 80% in the last 30 years. They've only increased by 20% in the last 40 years. They've stayed constant over the last 110 years. Numbers fluctuate but is always about 100, +/-30, per decade. There is NO INCREASE in major earthquakes and we shouldn't be claiming there is, because we can easily be proven wrong. --MandyC 19:14, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

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

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

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

Today the study Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased was published: the authors show that the earthquakes of the last hundred years fit well into the model of a homogeneous Poisson process, i.e., there is no increase of the number of big quakes. Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past. AugustO 17:50, 20 December 2011 (EST)

AugustO pulls out the heavy artillery: The Poisson distribution! The material on multiple regression and the Poisson distribution were my favorite parts of the last statistics course I took. :) Conservative 22:08, 20 December 2011 (EST)

AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004." Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events." They need to spend more time studying and learning from Counterexamples to an Old Earth. Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--Andy Schlafly 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly (Andy? What's the etiquette when user name = real name?), respectfully, I believe your short quotations from the abstract of the paper distort the context in which they were made. Here's the surrounding context:

“

We examine the timing of large (magnitude M ≥ 7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks The global rate of M ≥ 8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004, but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences—if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events. Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.

”

(your quotations emphasized). I believe their point is that it isn't enough to simply note that there have been more large earthquakes now than previously. In any random sequence there will always be some strange results, but we can't look at those anomalies in isolation. For example, if we flip a coin a thousand times and it's overall about 50-50, but the last 10 flips are all heads, we shouldn't immediately assume that the coin has recently become biased. Instead, we should consider the likelihood that chance alone could generate such a streak. I don't know enough about the math to evaluate their conclusion, but I think their premise is sound and I think you've mischaracterized it.--JustinD 01:04, 21 December 2011 (EST)

@Conservative: just take another course on statistics and you may find out the distinction between the Poisson distribution and a Poisson process.

@Aschlafly: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else that's not a plausible physical mechanism, that's a philosophical statement.

AugustO 02:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Entropy is physics, not philosophy. If you don't think increased disorder affects the Earth, then please explain your view on whether perpetual motion machines are possible.--Andy Schlafly 23:30, 21 December 2011 (EST)

It also relates to the second law of Thermodynamics, which states that Entropy in a system must always increase. NickP 00:17, 22 December 2011 (EST)

Actually no; it states that entropy in a CLOSED system cannot DECREASE. It doesn't have to increase; it can remain constant. --HarryPagett 17:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)

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

AugustO 10:09, 22 December 2011 (EST)

Are you saying that earthquakes are partly caused by radioactive decay? That's interesting. I thought convection currents were the main factor.--CPalmer 10:24, 22 December 2011 (EST)

Indeed. But what creates the convection currents? The heat from within the Earth, mainly caused by radioactive decay. AugustO 10:31, 22 December 2011 (EST)

August, increasing disorder affects all processes. I didn't see a response by you to my perpetual motion machine question. Earthquakes, regardless of their mechanism, reflect the truth that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.--Andy Schlafly 11:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)

But earthquakes AREN'T increasing. They fluctuate from year to year but there just isn't a long-term increase. The trend is stable. --HarryPagett 14:02, 22 December 2011 (EST)

Exactly. It doesn't seem very helpful to discuss how or why earthquakes are increasing in frequency before we determine whether or if they're increasing. And the paper cited by AugustO claims that there is no increase, despite recent appearances. So before we talk about radioactive decay or tectonics, we should decide if the study is to be trusted. If it is, there's little benefit to discussing mechanics. --JustinD 16:34, 22 December 2011 (EST)

In addition, the other examples August listed were not closed systems; tectonics is a closed system. NickP 12:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)

No, it's not. --FrederickT3 12:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)

Let me clarify: We have a heat source at the center of the Earth, resulting mainly from decay of radioactive nuclei. We also have a heat sink at the surface (dissipation of energy due to earthquakes, volcano eruptions, a bit of radiation, etc.). Tectonics is caused by the temperature gradient inbetween, an open system. --FrederickT3 15:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)

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

AugustO 16:48, 22 December 2011 (EST)

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

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

AugustO 15:40, 26 December 2011 (EST)

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

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

Conclusion

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

I alerted Aschlafly to these points (in my answer above) at his talk-page and he is aware of this comment ;-)

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

AugustO 10:00, 26 December 2011 (EST)

User:ScottDG reverted my edit, stating: Open your mind, August. Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me. I don't think that this is enough to justify the reversion of a well-substantiated edit. AugustO 12:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)

Is it just me or do "Open your mind" and "Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me" seem to be a bit on the contradictory side? In any case well done for getting that incorrect claim out of the article, and let's hope it stays out. --Uxbridge 13:49, 26 December 2011 (EST)

Rates

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

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

Dog Races

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

AugustO 09:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

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

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

AugustO 09:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Historical Counterexamples

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

• There are tree rings which are older than 3000 B.C (see dendrochronology) - I think that for the bristlecone pines you will find a fully anchored chronology of 8,500 years - going back to 6000 B.C.
• There are many reports about older clothing, woven textiles are date to be from 6000 B.C. ^[1]
• And there are other older remnants of civilizations, i.e. Lascaux

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

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

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

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

Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, That is misleading (at least), as the correction had nothing to do with the content of the article, but the illustration:

“

Correction: July 19, 1993, Monday An artist's rendering in Science Times on Tuesday, showing the weaving method believed to have been used in the earliest known piece of cloth, depicted the pattern incorrectly. The pairs of weft, or horizontal, strands probably wound around each other as well as around the warp, or vertical, strands.

”

Older clothing has been found, made from leather of fur. I just gave this example of woven cloth, which contradicts your statement in the article. Please change the article accordingly, as it is protected. Thanks.

AugustO 02:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)

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

your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation - as does your statement in the article, BTW! Could you add some? And have a look here. AugustO 02:49, 30 January 2012 (EST)

References

1. ↑ NYTimes 1993: Site in Turkey Yields Oldest Cloth ever Found

Earth's magnetic field

Mr. Schlafly, you wrote: "The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years". I don't see how this contradicts the scientists' hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old, since they think that the magnetic field regularly reverses itself link source. I think the readers would benefit from a clarification of this point. GregG 12:43, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

Agreed. The article you cited, Mr. Schlafly, states that "this could imply a reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields".

Brenden.
Contribs talk log

14:00, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

If magnetic fields would reverse themselves over thousands of years, then that is even more evidence for a young earth. Scientists think that many species, from turtles to birds, rely on a constant magnetic field to find their way.--Andy Schlafly 20:09, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

What precludes the possibility that the population changes over time as the magnetic field slowly changes to adapt to the new magnetic field? GregG 20:18, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Scientists claim that a moderate magnetic field is essential for many species to find their way around. If that magnetic field disappears, then those species go extinct. They wouldn't exist today. It's that simple.--Andy Schlafly 20:41, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

I'm no evolutionist, but Andy I think in this case you are severely underestimating nature's (God given) ability to adapt and find a way to survive.BruceDownUnder 20:50, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

That "God given" ability requires a young Earth. Many, many species go extinct every year - something that is also downplayed by people who deny God's existence.--Andy Schlafly 21:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

And many more continue to thrive, despite changes to their environment. I am surprised that you underestimate God's creation, Mr. Schlafly.BruceDownUnder 22:06, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

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

A mathematician's take

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AGW if true, would prove a young earth

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

Only 99% certain?

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

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

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

Template

The page is protected from editing. Could a sysop replace the list in See also with {{Counterexamples}}? Cipe 11:13, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

Done. Karajou 11:18, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

Magnetic Field of the Earth

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

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

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

I've removed the counterexample based on the growing number of large earthquakes. If we compare it with some of the other counterexamples:

• The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, therefore the Earth is young.
• The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, therefore the Earth is young.
• The age of onset of cancer is decreasing, therefore the Earth is young.
• The number of natural, pure-bred dogs is decreasing, therefore the Earth is young.
• The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing, therefore the Earth is young.
• The flow of water in the Colorado River is decreasing, therefore the Earth is young.
• The frequency of large earthquakes is increasing, therefore the Earth is young.

it's clear that it doesn't fit the pattern. It looks like it was just a mistake. --Occultations 16:32, 13 February 2013 (EST)

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

The earthquake counterexample does fit the pattern because it shows the Earth is not in a steady state, but is in a period of transition.--Andy Schlafly 23:28, 14 February 2013 (EST)

If earthquakes come in cycles, then it would not argue either way. Wschact 00:27, 15 February 2013 (EST)

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

Young Earth

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

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

• How is a core temperature of about 6,000°C, give or take 500°C far hotter than 5,000°C?
• A second question: Andrew Schlafly, you wrote that Biblical scientific foreknowledge predicted this, as Earth and heat were created prior to the Sun. What do you mean by this? How does this prediction work?

--AugustO 18:21, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Fast Erosion

Mountains erode faster than atheist geology previously thought - "no speed limit". [2] Add that to list perhaps? JamesWS 20:20, 17 January 2014 (EST)

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

History Section

The example listed is false, and thus has been removed. There are many examples, but here, for example, is a 7000 year old mask. [3]

Did the mask have a date carved on it or do we have to rely on unreliable old earth dating methods? See: Age of the earth Conservative 01:52, 18 October 2014 (EDT)

What would give a carved on date, or any of the examples listed (with the exception of tree rings), credibility and accuracy?

Expansion of the universe

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

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

Stalemate of scientific discoveries

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

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

How is this a counterexample? Waterfalls are thought to be relatively young, compared with the lifetime of a river. And even an old earth is to be expected to have some young features as an old man can sprout a new pimple: that does not make him an adolescent again. --AugustO (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2018 (EST)

The Niagara Falls were created by the recession of glaciers during the last glacial period 12,000 years ago, as were the Great Lakes. The fact that creationists think that this is an argument against the old Earth is laughable. GlaciersYouIDiots (talk) 02:13, September 19, 2021 (EDT)

And your evidence is ...??? Atheistic science is so circular in its reasoning.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 02:44, September 19, 2021 (EDT)

1. REDIRECT Template:Hide collapse

Really?

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

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

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

Other Examples of Premature Graying

I do not seem to have permission to edit the article, but could Ethan Klein of h3h3 and Claire Saffitz of Condé Nast be added as premature grayers? Ethan Parmet (talk) 23:08, July 21, 2022 (EDT)

Chimpanzee Statistics

The source in the genetics section for chimpanzees being more genetically distinct than humans is not cited. Can someone please add in this original source below? https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2012-03-02-chimps-show-much-greater-genetic-diversity-humans Ethan Parmet (talk) 23:11, July 21, 2022 (EDT)

I added your superb citation. I also unlocked the entry so you can edit it. I'm not familiar with the individuals you mention above so I did not make that proposed edit in the entry.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:14, July 22, 2022 (EDT)

Thank you very much! Ethan Parmet (talk) 14:31, July 22, 2022 (EDT)

Reference 34

I updated reference 34 to be an archive.org version of the link, as the original one didn't seem to be working anymore. Ethan Parmet (talk) 20:26, September 15, 2022 (EDT)