Talk:Moon

Disagreement with current entry

I couldn't decide whether to erase this article and make an actual page for the moon, or rebut the points made by Aschlafly. I figured I might be banned if I just rewrote it, but this article is so silly that it doesn't really warrent a point by point rebuttal.

As it is written, this article is not about the moon. It is simply a collection of creationist claims about the moon, which belong in pages for creationism. A page about the moon should certainly include physical data and scientific theories of the moon's formation, and THEN it would be appropriate to bring up the christian objections to those theories.

In addition to the above, these arguments are not even credible. Answers in Genesis asks christians not to argue that a receding moon argues for a young earth. Point 5 is illogical on its face. It says that our solar system is one of few (Source? how few is "few"?) that has a single star. (Also, it says only one moon, which is false, their are many moons in our solar system, earth has only one moon.) The truely illogical part is that being one of these supposed few demonstrates "uniqueness." Clearly if there are multiple systems that meet the criteria, than our solar system is NOT unique. Does this argue for the existence of multiple Gods? Of course not, but no more so than it argues for one God. It is simply an erroneous, illogical, and irrelevant statement. Conservapedia will be rightly mocked for allowing content like this.

So editors, please advise. How should I proceed? Erase the article and replace it with a more thorough, more appropiate page, or will that result in banning?

I advise that you add your description of the moon at the top of the article and put the rest in a section towards the bottom. Thank you for your contributions. ~ SharonS 20:36, 22 February 2007 (EST)

I don't see any way to edit the page, but the reason why one face of the moon is always turned towards earth is because of tidal locking, not coincidence.

"Tidal locking" doesn't explain it. You'll have to justify your argument much better than that.--Aschlafly 00:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

tidal locking can be seen elsewhere in the solar system. Pluto and Charon, for example. Or the moons of Phobos and Deimos to Mars. Using Mercury to explain the phenomena away isn't really accurate.--Dave3172 00:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The same claim was made about Mercury, misleading people for years, before it was proven false. Similar flaws can be expected to be found with the other bodies. "Tidal locking" would not explain the totally synchronous orbit anyway. There would be deviations greater than what is seen.--Aschlafly 01:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Point 5 in the article is complete and utter nonsense and should be removed. It is an opinion of one person with absolutely no relation to the moon. Can someone please unlock this article?--Sm355 12:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Further Disagreement with current entry

Some links and comments about the points in the article:

1. If you check the Wikipedia article for Solar Eclipses, you'll note "An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon." (there's a pic too) so its not always a perfect match; this is because the moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse: "The distance from from the Earth to the Moon varies by about 13% as the Moon travels in its orbit around us." [1]

Of course it's not completely, 100%, absolutely physically identical, and the entry does not claim it is. Neither are perfect twins, by the way.--Aschlafly 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The entry claims "Throughout man's existence, the Moon has had the same size as the Sun when viewed from Earth." This is demonstrably not true. It is similar, but if it was "the same" then annular eclipses would not occur. -- Limulus 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

2. [2] The link given about Mercury also gives the scientific explanation about the moon BTW. Also, the deal with Mercury (from that article) was apparently because it was claimed that the direct visual observation of it indicated that it had a single side facing the sun; *that* was wrong. We can clearly see that the moon presents the same side.

This doesn't refute the statement in point 2 that "The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design."--Aschlafly 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

quoting from the link: "Since Earth's gravity is much stronger than the Moon's, the tides from the Earth on the Moon are much stronger than the Moon's tides on the Earth. The Moon has tidal bulges just like the Earth, and so it too was slowed by the Earth's pull on its nearer bulge." And especially if the moon started out as a molten mass it would have solidified in a non-spherical shape as a result. -- Limulus 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

3. [3]

Your point?--Aschlafly 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Did you even bother to read the link? Right now point 3 is "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." But iron does not 'permeate' the earth, it is far far more common in the core than in the outer layers. And the computer modeling mentioned at the link demonstrated that if a large enough meteor struck the earth, its iron would sink to the core and blast out a large amount of the less dense outer layers and *that* is what they're saying the moon was made from. They further argue that "The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions." -- Limulus 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

4. That's basically "Slichter's dilemma" and was solved by the 80's [4]

Talkorigins.org is not an authority. Your point?--Aschlafly 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

talkorigins.org has a lot of very useful material based on mainstream science. You can argue against it point by point, but dismissing it out of hand is not very useful to fixing the mistakes in this article. My point, if you actually read the article, is that since the 80's its been demonstrated that with a better model of the continents incorporated into the earth-moon system you get an age for the moon that is several billion years old, not "a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years" which led to "Slichter's dilemma". -- Limulus 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

5. There are "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy alone. [5] So "few" could easily be many many million in just our 'neighborhood' of the universe.

Many millions of solar systems with just one sun? You need to support that far-fetched claim.--Aschlafly 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, perhaps you are not aware that the stars we see in the sky are actually different suns. They only look faint and point-like because they are so far away. Astronomers are now finding that many of these stars have their own planets orbiting them, so yes, evidence does point to many millions of solar systems (each orbiting their own parent star) existing in our Galaxy alone.--Macronking 12:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

[6] states that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system" So in the article where it says "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun." its actually 'one of the third'. Combine that with "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy, that's dozens of billions with only one sun. And BTW, there are "many billion" galaxies in the universe (likely somewhere between 10 and 125 billion [7]) so the number of one sun solar systems is, literally, astronomical ;) The only thing "far-fetched" is to claim that the article as currently written is accurate in the least. -- Limulus 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Minor nitpick: I figure it is more like half the solar systems in our galaxy have just one sun. If the other half are binary, then it would still be correct that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system". RSchlafly 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey, good point! Thanks for spotting that :) -- Limulus 21:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- Limulus 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Number 5

The existence of 1 moon and 1 sun suggest 2 gods to me (1+1=2). Throw in the Earth and we are up to 3. Now, toss in the other planets and their moons and we are getting up to a pretty awesome set of gods and goddesses. All we need is a rainbow bridge to heaven!

1 moon; 1 earth = 1 God?

1 web site; one nutcase writer = 1 screwed up view of the world.

Could someone please unlock the Moon page so a professional can repair it? The first four points on this page are demonstratably false, and the fifth point is just religious opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with the Moon.

Current Article Factually Incorrect

Again, can someone please unlock this article? The first four points are factually incorrect. If vandalism is an issue, then at least remove the incorrect material and keep a bare-bones page instead. Macronking

Errors explained and supported are corrected. Ideologically motivated claims of error are not. All I see here so far are the latter.--Aschlafly 12:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The article needs work, and even contradicts itself. Item 2 says "without any plausible physical reason", and then gives tidal forces as a physical reason. Item 3 says "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin" after giving the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth. Item 5 is completely silly. There are billions of solar systems with only one sun. We don't know of any with something like the Earth and Moon, but there are certainly many with one sun. RSchlafly 13:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I welcome specific suggestions for improvements. Ideologically motivate changes without proof, of course, would be better sent to Wikipedia!

Point 2 is correct, there is not "any plausible physical reason." The point then notes that tidal forces do not explain the bulge on the moon, and how the same theory for Mercury has been disproven.

Point 3 explains why the Moon could not have possibly broken off from the Earth, which was the leading theory until samples were taken from the Moon that showed its crust is nothing like the Earth's.

Point 5 is correct. I'll look for a cite. There is no evidence that there are "billions of solar systems with only one sun."--Aschlafly 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that it is reasonable to say that the Earth-Moon system is very unusual in the universe, as far as we know. We don't know how unusual, but some of those unusual aspects may be critical for life on Earth as we know it. It is also a fact that the Moon has less iron than Earth, and is receding.

But it is very misleading to avoid saying that there is a generally accepted scientific theory that the Moon resulted from a gigantic collision with the Earth several billion years ago. The theory explains the lack of iron and several other anomalies. I don't know why you avoid this, since it is consistent with your thesis that the Earth-Moon system is unique.

Your tidal comments are nonsense. The same tidal force theory that explains the Moon's rotation also explains Mercury's. Mercury just happens to be locked into a slightly different resonance. RSchlafly 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

RSchlafly is right on all 3 points. In fact, they used to suppose that Mercury's resonance resulted in an 88-day rotational period, same as its "year". I was in 4th grade when I happened to find out that Mercury's rotational period was actually 58.6 days, due to its 3:2 resononce. That is, it rotates 3 times for every 2 revolutions around the sun. --Ed Poor 17:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

And I immediately corrected my dad's Encyclopedia Britannica in red ink! (I was born for this, you see. ;-) --Ed Poor 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4

Your Moon point #4 that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past can easily shown to be false in three lines. First, write the total angular momentum (L) for the Earth+Moon system. It consists of three parts: the Earth's rotation on its axis, the Moon's rotation on its axis, and the Moon's revolution about the Earth:

L = Ie We + Im Wm + r^2 Mm Wm

where Ie and Im are the momen of inertias of the Earth and Moon, We and Wm are the angular rotations of the Earth and Moon, Mm is the mass of the Moon and r is the Earth-Moon radius. Second, since angular momentum is conserved, take the time derivative dL/dt, set it to zero, and solve for dr/dt. For brevity, I'll denote the time derivate with a D, so dr/dt = Dr. This gives:

Dr = -(DWe + DWm(1 + Mm r^2)) / (2 r Wm Mm)

Third, both the numerator and denominator in this expression are positive, since We and Wm are negative (both the Moon and Earth rotate slower, that is We and Wm are less than zero, as energy is lost due to tidal friction). This means that Dr is positive. So the rate of change in the Earth-Moon distance is increasing with time, so it was slower in the past. This refutes your claim that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past.--Macronking 12:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've shown that one critical point in your Moon point #4 is incorrect. Please unlock the page so a professional can correct it.--Macronking 14:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Presumably the speed of the Moon's orbit would decrease as it got further away. I don't see how you factored that into your analysis.--Aschlafly 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree that Moon point #4 is incorrect, but I am not sure that your argument is correct either. It looks like a good argument that Dr is positive, but then you conclude that Dr is increasing. For that you would need to show that the 2nd derivative is positive. I don't see why that follows from your argument. RSchlafly 14:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh

So I thought I had found the most ridiculous articles when looking through various animals, and dinosaurs. I was wrong. This article, if you can even call it that, is basically just a list of how to (wrongly) justify creationism by attempting to find logic in the solar system.

First of all, one source? ONE SOURCE? For an entire article about something which should have plenty of scientific sources about various things? Not a mention of humans landing on the moon, only mention of scientific theory of its creation is trying to disprove it (wrongly again), no mention of the other moons in the universe, no mention of what the moon is made of, no mention of water that used to be on the moon, no mention of impact craters, no mention of physical characteristics, no mention of anything FACTUAL.

1. Very irrelevant, is this an artistic study source or an encyclopedia?

2. Last sentence is again very irrelevant, and there are several different theories to why this occurs. Tidal forces should not be dismissed so easily either, especially with only once source using Mercury to show that it does not work that way. We're not talking about Mercury, are we? This is (like most articles on this website) trying to state things as fact which are opinions.

3. "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin for the Moon at this time." - Made me fall out of my chair laughing. Did you take science class in school? Doesn't seem like it. There are a ton of theories for the moon, and the primary theory is definately not what you said it was. That was an early speculation at most. I always thought that the primary theory was that a space rock hit earth and part of that formed the moon, which also explains the Earth's tilt.

4. Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG. The main theory, once again, is not that the piece broke off from the Earth. The theory that a space rock hit the Earth would account for everything, making this point completely irrelevant, biased, and incorrect.

5. "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God." - more laughter from me. How does it reflect the existance of one God? Does that mean in the billions of other solar systems there are other gods? And if they have two suns and two moons, there's two? It makes no logical sense what-so-ever, and is once again irrelevant to this article. If you have personally travelled to every solar system, I suppose that would be a reliable source. But, you haven't, and haven't cited anything for this amazingly inaccurate statement, so please fix the article. --ALFa 15:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. Unlock the article. RSchlafly 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"Global" (no pun intended) reply to the above

As a simple matter of the history of theories of the moon's origin, the above criticism is completely false. There were "accepted" theories of the moon's origin, and they were all disproven by the lunar landings. Even if you cling to those theories, please admit the historical facts. Afterwards, in a panic, scientists convened to develop a brand new theory of the moon's origin. The current theory was the result of the scientists not being able to think of any other atheistic explanation. That's all.

Let's proceed this way. Obviously ALFa wants to take a crack at a content page. I've just written Moon Theories and it is unlocked and available for ALFa to edit. After we improve it and hopefully agree on some content, then let's merge the best of it with the Moon page. Sound like a good procedure? Feel free to start right in.--Aschlafly 19:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

" any other atheistic explanation ". Ok, but filling the gaps in science with religious faith is not in the least bit helping anyone. All you have done is criticise the current theory. There is most definitely no religious explanation that can be tested since it requires a person to have faith in something that cannot be seen, heard, sensed etc. For example, there is an anomaly with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft where it has veered off course and can not as yet be explained by scientists. One could say that God had a "hand" in this, but we cannot test this hypothesis at all and requires complete faith to continue to believe this idea. That is why more scientific investigation needs to be conducted and not signing the idea straight off to God.--Sm355 19:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Answers in Genesis ascribes to the idea that "the moon was specially created ex nihilo at its present distance and in its present orbit some 6,000 years ago" [8] A Moon Theories page will not resolve the conflict then since there is a fundamentally unresolved matter of the age of the universe (e.g. mainstream science estimates that the moon and earth are nearly a million times older than AiG does) from which most of the conflict between mainstream science and biblical literalism derives IMHO. There is no need for rhetoric about 'atheistic explanations' BTW. The current scientific explanation is basically a glorified version of 'a big rock hit a bigger rock and knocked off a piece'. The "several striking characteristics that only be described as artistic in design" sounds rather like the Virgin Mary sightings in baking pans, etc. [9] [10] [11] [12] that is, people seeing what they want to see... -- Limulus 04:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Article is disturbing

I think that Ronald Reagan is a great man. I also see dangerous doctrines of social engineering coming out of the ideology of Darwinism. But when I look at this locked moon page, I see a strange message that conservatives shouldn't overthink astronomy. There is a lot that the page doesn't say about the moon. It doesn't give its diameter, its mass, the length of its orbit, or its distance from the earth. It doesn't give its composition as studied in the Apollo program. Heck, it doesn't even say that men landed on the moon at all! All it does is give a numbered argument for why the moon is evidence for young-Earth creation specifically. It also has only one single reference for one of its many points.

So I took an interest in the references. I did not know that the moon is receding from the Earth, so I looked that up. NASA says that the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.8 centimeters per year [13], whereas this page says: "The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year,..." If you are only interested in what the rate of recession is less than, why stop at 6 inches? Why not say, "The moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 10 feet per year. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 10 feet per year..."

I also did not know much about the surface composition of the moon, so I looked that up too. This page says, "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." I think that the first half of that is true, but according to this page [14], the Earth's surface also lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth. Are we not supposed to think about the difference between surfaces and permeations? PBrown 13:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Changes

I've altered the article to more closely reflect the contents of the reference given, and to correct some errors on the Roche limit section. Might put up an article on tidal locking later if no one else gets to it. Also removed the reference to 'artistic' features, since I don't see anything particularly artistic about, say, iron deficiency. Tsumetai 08:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Far side and near side

"Not surprisingly, it turned out to look a lot like near side."

The far side does not look like the near side. There are no great seas across it and it is simply a lot of craters. [15] 31% of the near side is covered in these seas while only 2.5% of the far side is. They do not look anything alike. --Mtur 18:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

• You're right. I removed it. Dpbsmith 10:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Old Earth

While Conservapedia does not take sides in this, it does tell the truth, and the truth is that atheists heavily promote old earth theories as a way of leading students away from faith.--Aschlafly 18:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I think "promoted by atheists" is unnecessary - Christian astronomers such as Guillermo Gonzalez, Alan Sandage (discovered of quasars) and Fred Heeren (a Christian apologist) are old earth believers, and there is nothing inherently atheistic about what they believe. "Promoted by atheists" is true, but atheists also promote a lot of other things. The fact is, many theists promote it as well, so it's a non sequitur. Just because atheists use it as a tool to lead some from faith does not mean that they should have dominion of the field. DanH 18:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I don't object to having young earth bias in the articles, but to say that if you don't believe in a young earth, you're an atheist, that really offends me. DanH 18:28, 23 November 2007 (EST)

No one said that, Dan. But it is indisputable that atheists promote, and promote heavily, a theory of an old earth. And it's obvious why they do so: it leads many students, though obviously not all, away from faith and political views consistent with faith. Show me 100 teenagers who believe the earth is over 10 billion years old, and I'll show you 90 teenagers growing up to be atheists.--Aschlafly 18:38, 23 November 2007 (EST)

• If an atheist says the sky is blue, those agreeing with him are also atheists? Ergo, just because most atheists are thought to believe in an Earth older than 6,000 or so years, that makes it an "atheistic thought"? Poppycock! What kind of ideology-driven, non logic is that? You are not backing down to atheists by re-stating that clearly, and taking away the pious, insults leveled at the majority of Christians. You have now switched the time-frame from a billion to ten billion years, without explaining that. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 18:43, 23 November 2007 (EST)
  

(Repeating some of Andy's post which I wrote before I had an edit conflict with him, then TK.) I don't think anyone said that believing in an old earth makes one an atheist. If they did, I would disagree with them.

However, there is something inherently atheistic about belief in an old Earth and moon when the Bible clearly teaches that the whole of creation is "young" (i.e. around 6,000 years old). Christians who believe in an old creation do so because of non-biblical reasons, i.e. reasons promoted by atheists (or because they trust other Christians who believe such). See Old Earth Creationism for evidence of this.

Philip J. Rayment 18:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

• Totally amazing, Philip, that all those billions of Catholics, and other Churches, seem to miss this "truth" you and others claim.....--şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 18:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

TK, no one said that people who agree with atheists about an old earth must also be atheists. It's a Christian view that there is life after death. That does not mean everyone who believes in life after death are Christians. Hindus are not, for example.

But we are going to the tell the truth here, and atheists do heavily promote their view of an old earth to weaken and often destroy the faith of teenagers and adults. And once that faith is destroyed, many other things follow: depression, despondency, abortion, liberal political views, etc. Is this effect seen in every single case? Of course not. Is it seen on a statistical basis out of groups of hundreds, thousands and millions? Of course it is. And we're going to tell the truth here.

As to "billions of Catholics and other Churches" believing in an old earth, TK, that is precisely the type of liberal hearsay and misperceptions that we criticize and expose here.--Aschlafly 18:53, 23 November 2007 (EST)

• So, you have dared to publicly brand what I said, factual as it is, as being like "Liberal hearsay" and a misconception of what the Roman Catholic Church believes? That what I said was a "mis-characterization", that the Catholic Church believes in a Earth older than 6,000 years? I just want you to state that is so publicly, here if that is what you meant to say. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 18:59, 23 November 2007 (EST)

(Replying to TK)

• I doubt that there's "billions" of Catholics, at least if you are just counting ones alive today.
• The majority believing something does not make it right.
• If you count Christians over the last 2000 years, plus Jews before that, most would have believed it to be 6,000 years (now), so the majority in this case is for a young moon.
• An appeal to popularity argument is a logical fallacy.

Philip J. Rayment 18:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

The Roman Catholic Church - the largest branch of Christianity - says there are a total of 1.156 billion baptized members around the globe. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:05, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I guess that might just qualify as "billions" (plural), but that still leaves my other points unanswered. Philip J. Rayment 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

• Conversely, Philip, a minority believing something is right, like a 6,000 year old Earth, does not make it "right" either. Nor should the beliefs of that minority be constantly presented as "the truth", the only truth, because it is insulting to others. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:02, 23 November 2007 (EST)

True (your first sentence), but YECs are not claiming it to be true because of majority opinion, like you claimed for an old Earth, so that is irrelevant.

There is nothing wrong with presenting the beliefs of the minority as true if they are true, and you are concentrating on arguments of popularity rather than addressing the points that I raised.

Philip J. Rayment 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

TK, out of 1 billion Catholics worldwide, I'd be surprised if 1% of them believe the Earth is more than 1 billion years old as taught by the atheists. But I will say this: more than 50% of educated ex-Catholics (and ex-Christians) lost their faith because they were indoctrinated with atheistic dogma in school. Promoting an old earth view is perhaps the single most effective way of enticing a teenager to lose their faith.--Aschlafly 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

• Andy, please answer the question! Are you branding my statements as mis characterization of what the Catholic Church believes, and me being out-of-step with Conservative thought? Your time frame keeps jumping wildly between a billion and ten billions of years, so it is hard to answer what time-frame you imagine is being taught. And so long as one accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord, and accepts that all of creation is God's work, should this be the battle you (or any of us) should fight, given all of Christianity is under attack? My answer is no, it should not! --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Faith requires belief in Jesus and only one Adam, and the Catholic Church has absolutely prohibited anyone from teaching to the contrary. Enough said?--Aschlafly 19:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

This is a deeply personal issue for me that cuts to the edge of an intense faith struggle in my past, so I don't share it often. And I agree with Andy that proving an old earth threatens the faith of many. But we must still reach out to these people who are taught this and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins. It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins. If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old? No, we are to disagree with them on this issue, knowing that Biblical history and prophecy verify the Bible.

Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this. Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth. The Bible does not NECESSITATE IT. David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.

I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others. I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. I talked to a couple of Southern Baptist seminary students who helped me out. I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible. I know others have lost their faith in this manner - scientist Greg Neyman has documented this trend. Both sides are guilty of this - old earthers try to destroy faith of the young earthers by proving the earth is old, and young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young. All that matters for the plan of Salvation is set in place in the New Testament. I don't even mind the article putting forth every young earth article out there, but I would hope that the article would say "old earth view put forth by atheists and old Earth creationists." If I sat next to any young earth believer in a pew in Sunday morning, nothing would theologically differentiate us other than the insignificant issue of origins. The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this. DanH 23:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Dan, virtually no one's faith survives the atheistic promotion of an old earth. Perhaps only 1 in 100 can, and not much more than that. Even if your faith survives, you'll be causing others to lose their faith by espousing an old earth. This is as factual as observing how alcoholics lose their health over time.

Personally, I didn't reject an old earth for reasons of faith. I completely accepted an old earth until I was about 40 years old. I only rejected an old earth based a thorough open-minded application of logic and science that took several years. Then, as an unexpected bonus, I found my faith greatly strengthened. I had been taught all the lies about the Catholic Church embracing an old earth (not true), about how science proves it (not true), about how everyone supposedly accepts it (not true), etc.

One thing I've noticed is how a believer in an old earth will shy away from debate of the issue when he senses his belief in an old earth might be shaken. That's how darkness works: it abhors light. Most of the believers in an old earth would change their mind as soon as they allow it to be open, and allow logic to shine in. Try it, please. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:10, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I like to always keep an open mind on this issue, so I don't wish to shy away from these issues. I will try to expand my readings of more diverse sources on the issue in the future. I don't like to promote my old earth views out of fear that I may damage another's faith - when talking about reasons to believe, I prefer to talk about historical verification of the faith because anyone who claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead has a lot of explaining to do when looking at the history. DanH 00:15, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Perhaps if we just specify more precisely - rather than saying that atheist support it (which, in fairness to both Dan and TK - does kind of imply that Christians don't support it) - we could say, Atheist and non-Young-Earth Christians support it? I mean, that's obviously a completely true statement - and that way we can make sure not to offend anyone - so really it's a win-win.--IDuan 00:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Dan, please realize that Jesus and His sacrifice make no sense unless there was one Adam and his original sin. The Catholic Church has prohibited teaching anything to the contrary about man's origins.

But, as I said, I reject an old earth based on logic and science. The arguments for an old earth have logical flaws and much deceit, while arguments against it are compelling. But watch how old earth believers are pulled away from discussing it with an open mind, as I was until I overcame that when I was 40 years old.

Unfortunately, I have to sign off soon tonight but will be back online tomorrow morning. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:29, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I do believe in one Adam, a special creation, and I don't think not believing in one is an option, given that Adam is mentioned both in the Old Testaments and New. It is unfortunate that many old earth believers do not. DanH 00:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)

OK, now how about a worldwide flood after the origin of man? There is limestone in every part of the world, at every altitude. There are salt-water lakes inland and high altitudes. There's no doubting that a worldwide flood occurred after the origin of life, as limestone can only be formed from the sidement of living organisms. The Grand Canyon can only plausibly be explained as having been formed by a flood. But many old earthers will deny all this to erode faith, particularly in students. Dan, what's your view?--Aschlafly 09:39, 24 November 2007 (EST)

My view is the same as Greg Neyman - universal flood but local in nature. However, I didn't come to the site to promote science - I came to promote a Christian worldview and political conservatism. I feel demonized, by being accused of promoting atheism and rejecting God (as evidenced by the last comment of Phillip's reply to me - that's really what it says.) I don't wish to make anybody believe the same I do about origins - I simply want to be accepted as a Christian with a different view on the issue, just as one with multiple denominations. I am going to need some time to reconsider my role on this project. DanH 12:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)

My comment was about those that reject God; it wasn't putting you in that category—I know that you don't reject God. I do accept you as a Christian with a different view on the issue, and the only reason for challenging your view is because you made statements that I felt needed a response. Philip J. Rayment 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Dan, I don't know who Greg Neyman is, and I'm just trying to have an open-minded discussion of this topic with you and others here, which is what the real value in a wiki is. Maybe we can learn from each. We're not going to learn anything if discussion ends, that's for sure.

From a purely scientific point of view, if there was no universal flood, then why is there limestone (which requires water and organisms) at every altitude and every part of the world? Why are there salt-water lakes far inland and at high altitudes all around the world? From a purely religious point of view, were there descendants of Adam outside of Neyman's theory of a flood? That would cause doctrinal problems that undermine Jesus' Crucifixion.

As perhaps you'll agree, the promotion of an old earth does erode faith in many people. From a belief in the old earth comes a denial of Adam and/or the Flood, and eventually denial by many of the purpose of Jesus, and before long many people are ex-Catholics or ex-Christians who don't want to discuss it anymore. It's sad and entirely avoidable with open-minded discussion.--Aschlafly 12:51, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I don't know much about limestone and the Grand Canyon, other than a supposed refutation of the model that explains the deposition of sandstone in the Grand Canyon during the flood. I will read more about the issue - I am not as averse to the idea of a universal flood as many on the old earth side, given that any flood would have had to be a miracle in any event and it would certainly be within God's power. The interpretation of a local flood would hold that the entire population of Earth was destroyed, but that the flood was only large enough to kill the population (under the Hebrew meaning of the term kol eretz, which means all the land, both here and elsewhere in the Old Testament), and thus that the descendants of Noah were the only remaining people (and thus the descendants of Adam). When we read the Bible today, we bring in modern assumptions, such as that of a spherical earth. Not all people necessarily had that knowledge then, although the Bible does refer to the "circle" of the earth in the book of Job or Psalms. Thus, the same word that would have been used to refer to a flood over the entire earth may have referred to a flood that simply killed all of the people on earth. But a global flood might have been possible as well.

I would strongly agree with you that shying away from intellectual issues is a major problem with the proliferation of atheism, which is a shame, given that all of archaeology, history, and science (anthropic principle, impossibility of evolution, etc.) points to the truth of the Bible. I won't even doubt that some have turned away because of the views of an Old Earth, or that some have modified their biblical reading to fit with scientific observations. I will freely admit to this charge - although I think we do it more often than we think. When we read Joshua's account of the sun standing still, we don't take this to refer to heliocentrism as many did before discoveries indicated otherwise - we take this to refer to how the sun appeared from the Earth. It's not the most natural reading, but it is a possible reading of Scripture - and that is how old Earth interpretations are - not the most natural readings, but possible ones nonetheless. DanH 13:04, 24 November 2007 (EST)

A local flood that killed the entire population of the Earth would be a remarkable event, even assuming that the entire population was confined to the Middle East. The Bible records that the flood lasted a year and covered the highest mountains, and the ark landed on Ararat. Ararat, from memory, is about 14,000 feet high. So the "local flood" idea proposes a flood 14,000 feet deep that lasted a year, but was somehow confined to the Middle East! Unless, of course, you want to mythologise/allegorise/whatever those points. Then of course, why would Noah need to build an ark, when he could have emigrated? And why take birds on board, when they could easily fly to another country? For that matter, why take representatives of all the animals, or does the idea claim that the animals hadn't spread beyond the Middle East either?

The "spherical Earth" is not a modern assumption. It is an observation.

I'm not convinced that you are correct regarding Joshua's long day. Specifically, do we know how ancient people took it, or is that an assumption? And is heliocentricism really the "most natural reading"? The sun standing still is a literal reading of how it appears from Earth, and perhaps that's simply how ancient people understood it; that is, perhaps no-one understood it to teach heliocentricism (prior to the church adopting pagan ideas on that).

Philip J. Rayment 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Dan, we seem to agree that God could have created a young earth, and we seem to agree that the Flood could have been worldwide. Because it could have happened, there is no rational argument for insisting that it must not have happened. For example, if my wife tells me that she think it rained last night, and I say "no, I don't think so," wouldn't it a surprise if I then emotionally insisted on cutting off debate?? Or if I then insisted that my wife not express her view to our children?? If that insistence on censorship happened, then it would be reasonable to conclude that there something more than science lurking below the discussion.

A central part of the old earth theory is a denial of a worldwide flood. The theory of an old earth was promoted as a way of persuading more people about evolution in the 1800s. But if there was a worldwide flood after the origin of life, as proven by the limestone deposits, then evolution was cut off anyway and the usefulness of the old earth theory is diminished. So I'd be amazed if you could find a single person who beliefs in both an old earth and a worldwide flood. Yet Catholic doctrine, and Jesus' Passion, implicitly relies on Noah's flood and most Americans accept it.--Aschlafly 13:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

• There is a mixing of doctrine here that fits a disturbing pattern. The Holy Roman Church does not endorse, nor has it ever said that the Earth was "young" in the manner than YEC's claim it is. One can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years. And contrary to what Andy is promoting here, I believe the Catholic Church has and continues to save millions of souls, believing in one Jesus, one Adam. I don't see anyone "cutting off debate here" but I do see the issue raised as a "red herring". The Catholic Church states the flood is fact. That doesn't mean it happened in the time-frame YEC's are saying it did. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 13:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I very much doubt that it's true that the 'Holy Roman church ... has [never] said that the Earth was "young" '. They may not have said so in the last, say, century, but I'd be pretty certain they've said so earlier.

Sure, one can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years, just as one can believe in pixies at the bottom of the garden. What one can believe is not the point. What the Bible teaches is the point.

Philip J. Rayment 08:22, 25 November 2007 (EST)

TK, I didn't say anything about what "YEC's are saying," and I don't believe in relying on hearsay anyway. I'm engaging in a direct and open-minded discussion of the facts here regardless of the perceptions and misperceptions of what others may believe. This discussion is what wikis do best.--Aschlafly 13:50, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The only person I've ever come across who mixes the views of an old Earth with a worldwide flood is John Oakes, who wrote a book called "Does God Exist?" The book has a lot of seemingly contradictory beliefs, though, because it mixes that with theistic evolution. DanH 14:23, 24 November 2007 (EST)

By the way, being raised Baptist, I'm not very familiar with Catholic views, so out of curiosity, I'd like to ask how their view of the Passion is associated with Noah's flood. DanH 14:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Dan, if we agree that God could have created a young earth, then why insist with incomplete information that He must not have done so? Also, if we agree on a massive flood, about when do you think it occurred? Around 3000-3500 B.C., or millions of years ago? (Will reply to your second point a bit later.)--Aschlafly 14:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

If the flood were local, I would probably place the flood early in human history, around 30,000 or 35,000 BC, at least at some point before humans were first in places such as America, because if a flood was local in scope and universal in nature (and the Scripture makes clear that all mankind other than Noah's family was affected), it could not have affected this. Of course, this view accepts that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were telescoped and thus did not include every generation.

One of the scriptural reasons I accept it as local is Genesis 8:3, where the Bible says that the flood waters receded. If the flood was worldwide, where would the waters have receded to? Also, when God used a wind to help recede the waters in Genesis 8:1, a wind would not have had as much of a tempering effect if the water covered the entire earth. DanH 14:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)

If the flood was 30,000 or 35,000 B.C., and destroyed all of humanity, then the Australian Aborigines must not be humans, given that they are supposed to have arrived in this country 40,000 to 60,000 years ago. This is one of the problems with Hugh Ross' teach that Greg Neyman supports. And to be picky (like I tend to be; sorry), this doesn't "accept" that the genealogies in Genesis were telescoped, it claims it, which makes a mockery of them, as they are not just genealogies, but chrono-genealogies.

Psalm 104:8 (NASB) says that "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down". The flood waters didn't cover Everest; Everest, along with many other mountains, rose up at the end of the flood, and the ocean troughs formed or deepened. This explains where the water went.

Philip J. Rayment 08:33, 25 November 2007 (EST)

30,000 BC is too long ago, as human population would have grown to much larger than what it was by the time of Christ. But adherence to an old earth would inevitably cause older and older times for everything. All the geneology in the Bible is completely false if the flood was 30,000 BC, and we should have discovered writings older than 3000 BC if the flood was 30,000 BC. Yet no writings or civilizations have been discovered older than the biblical estimated date for the flood.

In response to your question above abou the Catholic Church, Peter was the first Pope and founder of the Catholic Church. He said in 2 Peter 2:4, with the full power of infallibility:

4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.

--Aschlafly 14:38, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Reply to DanH

First let me thank DanH for his more restrained discussion here, and for spending time thinking about it.

"...we must still reach out to these people who are taught [an old Earth] and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins.": Agree totally.

"It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins.": If it's really made up and closed, but YEC groups have been having great success in changing people's minds.

"If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old?": No YEC would "let them go to hell" for not believing in a young Earth.

"Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this.": As do I. And the same applies in English. The sentence, "In my grandfather's day, it took six days to drive across Australia, travelling during the day" uses the word "day" in three different ways, and one of those ways (the first) is as an indefinite period of time. But which way each occurrence is used is quite clear from the context, and to try and argue that the second reference ("six days") can refer to a long period of time is to abuse the language—it can't mean that. The same applies in Hebrew. When used with "morning", "evening", or a number, the word "day" (yom) only ever means a literal day. Genesis uses all three! That it can only be used this way is clear from Hebrew scholars, and from the witness of the church for thousands of years, in that essentially nobody proposed an "old" Earth on the basis of the biblical record. That is, the idea for an "old" Earth has not come from the Bible, but from non-biblical sources, i.e. secular/atheistic ideas.

"Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth.". Yes, they do (as far as I know), but why? They do so because they are trying to accommodate the (supposed) science, not because of Scripture.

"David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible." I've not read that. What are his biblical reasons for believing that the Bible teaches an old Earth? Or is it just that it is "feasible", rather than taught?

"I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others.": The problem that I have with that, of course, is that I don't believe that there is any "undeniable proof" of an old Earth. And you haven't mentioned any.

"I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. ... I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible.": What you appear to be saying is that in a contest between the claims of fallible scientists and the Bible, if you can't reconcile them, you will go with the fallible scientists? In that case, the fault is with the fallible scientists, not with those that seek to uphold the Bible. What I also noticed is that your comments seem to imply that you had to have the biblical case for an old Earth explained to you, because your plain reading of it suggested otherwise. So the problem was not with the YECs, but between the old-Earthers and your reading of the Bible. So why blame the YECs?

"Both sides are guilty of this ... young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young.": This is nonsense. YECs are not trying to "destroy the faith" of anyone, but to build their faith, by showing that the Bible as nearly everyone, atheist or Christian, understands it (whether they believe it or not), can be believed.

"...the insignificant issue of origins...": The issue of origins, as has been explained by Andy and even accepted by you, has the potential to destroy the faith of many people. It is thus not "insignificant".

"The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this.": The real problem is those that question (reject) God, whether that be in rejecting the biblical foundations of Genesis or the later parts in the New Testament.

Philip J. Rayment 01:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Reply to All

Ok everyone - while this YEC v OEC debate is obviously an important point - the real question is what to put into the article. I would like to re-suggest that we state that both atheist and non-Young earth Christians support the idea of an old earth - rather than what we have now, which only states atheist. Beyond that however- we're presenting the idea of an old earth in too much of a negative light. Andy and Phillip (et all) - while both of you obviously think that the earth is young, I think it's fairly obvious that many on this site disagree - and therefore I believe that we should not take a bias towards either side, and thereby I suggest that we drastically reduce the intro, and have maybe one sentence from each side - because if we do bullets like we have now - then this article is going to end up a war zone, and tit-for-tat arguing does nothing to build the encyclopedia.--IDuan 15:27, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Where does your approach end, Iduan? Must we also say in other entries that some Christians support same-sex marriage, abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, banning of the Ten Commandments, etc.??? A good encyclopedia can present positions based on a majority without being paralyzed by each and every exception. There is nothing wrong, for example, with observing and stating that the Founders of America were Christian, even if there may have been one or two exceptions.--Aschlafly 15:37, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Andy, come on. Obviously my goal is not to say that some Christians support the banning of the 10 Commandments. Seriously? You're mentioning things completely irrelevant to the point - and obviously the belief in an old earth is not a extreme minority opinion (as the others are) at all. The point is there is obviously a debate over this within the Christian community as proved by TK and DanH and you and Phillip (et all) - and belief in an old earth is a widely held opinion - just like belief in a young earth is weidely held - therefore both should be mentioned--IDuan 15:45, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Agreed. Most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, and there is no reason to deny that. There is slightly more diversity among leading Christians about the age of the Earth, as evidenced by the list here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml

I'm not saying these folks are the majority or even that they're right, but only that it is a fairly widely held view. DanH 15:52, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The debate did not start over the issue of the old-Earth age being mentioned, and in fact it was in there until Ed took it out, and he's now said that it should be back in. I plan on doing that. The debate was over whether or not the old-Earth view is, at heart, atheistic or not. It is true that a large number of Christian have adopted an old-Earth view, although I'm utterly convinced that this is totally opposed to the clear biblical teaching (for example, there is nothing in the Bible about an old Earth even remotely as clear and unambiguous as the statement of Exodus 20:11 that "...in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."), as well as being convinced that their prime reason for having this view is to accommodate the beliefs of fallible scientists, not because of biblical teaching, even though they make arguments that the bible can allow for an old Earth. Philip J. Rayment 08:47, 25 November 2007 (EST)

The Pope has no problem with evolution. Since evolution requires billions of years the Pope will have no problem with a history going back billions of years. Since he is God's representative on Earth, arguing against him is blasphemy.

PeterBird 08:15, 27 November 2007 (EST)

I'm not a Catholic, do don't accept your last sentence. What defines Christianity is not its leaders, but the Bible. The biblical history is that of a "young" Earth. Philip J. Rayment 20:44, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Interesting discussion about who believes what. Are you saying the Pope is not God's representative on Earth and that he has interpreted his Bible wrong? DaleHill 12:24, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Only Catholics believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth, and I've said that I'm not a Catholic, so the answer to your first question should be obvious. To answer the second, if the Pope has endorsed evolution and/or long ages, then yes, he's interpreted the Bible incorrectly. See my further comments below. Philip J. Rayment 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)

You and PeterBird do not quote the Pope because, in fact, he neither endorsed an old earth or evolution. Nor would. Go reread above what the first Pope and founder of the Catholic Church, Peter, said.--Aschlafly 15:42, 28 November 2007 (EST)

This article quotes popes [16]. Pius XII apparently embraced the big bang already in the 1950s. Order 19:05, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Order, I'm not going chase any more of your hearsay. This is Conservapedia, and we're not fooled by that. If you make a claim, then you back it up with a quote here. I can only assume you are unable to do that. Please, please, waste someone else's time, somewhere else.--Aschlafly 20:26, 28 November 2007 (EST)

I probably should stay out of this one, but this is my understanding: Not everything that the Pope says is considered infallible; only specific statements. I don't recall whether or not the current Pope has said anything to endorse evolution and/or long ages, but I'm sure that at least one or two previous Popes have. However, I don't think any have done so in the form of an infallible statement. Philip J. Rayment 20:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Philip, Peter was the first Pope, and his views are crystal clear. I'm sure no pope has contradicted that. But surely the supporters of evolution could come up with a quote of endorsement by a pope if it existed. It doesn't.--Aschlafly 22:03, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Philip, not everything the pope say is infallible. The pope is only infallible if he makes a statement "ex cathedra" which means in his role as head of the catholic church on behalf of the catholic church. So if a pope writes a letter to a scientist, he is not infallible. Neither was the Regensburgspeech by Ratzinger infallible, because he spoke the academic Ratzinger, and not as pope of the catholic church. Infallibility only applies to very special occasions.

Andy, not sure what qualifies as hearsay here, but I gave you a source [17]. If you want another source, here is an encyclical by pope Piux XII [18]. And these are "ex cathedra", this means they are covered by the claim of infallibility. And the encyclical says that Catholics are free to form an opinion on evolution, as long as it assumes a single Adam, and as long as they do accept that souls are god given. Order 22:31, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Andy, that Peter was the first Pope is a doctrine of Catholics, and I'm not Catholic, but that's not relevant to the discussion here, as we are talking about a Pope endorsing evolution or long ages, which Peter doesn't do anyway.

Order, thanks for the clarification on speaking infallibly (supposedly; I don't agree with it myself). I couldn't remember what the term was, let alone just when it applied.

Philip J. Rayment 00:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Infallibility is Catholic doctrine, but if you are not Catholic you are free to not accept this doctrine, it won't make it worse :) Order 00:55, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly I assume you are referring to the citing of 2 Peter 2:4 above. Does Pope John Paul II's Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996 carry no weight? There he mentions his predecessor Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani generis (1950) had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation.. Later he continues Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. [...] The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. Nowhere is the evolutionary time line explicitly rejected by his Holyness. The above may well be a non-existant quote of endorsement by a Pope. DaleHill 06:26, 29 November 2007 (EST)

DaleHill, your quote omits the rest of the sentence: "there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation ... on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points" Those "indisputable points" are utterly incompatible with the modern theory of evolution as it is promoted, believed and taught today. This is why the theory of evolution and an Old Earth erodes one's faith: it gets people to believe in things from which disbelief in Christianity logically follows. Promoters of these atheistic concepts will say the equivalent of "no, I didn't say '2+3=6', I said '2+2=5'!!!" The former plainly follows from the latter.--Aschlafly 10:37, 29 November 2007 (EST)

It further goes on to state: Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God i.e. accepting that humans evolved from pre-existent living matter, i.e other creatures, it is our souls that are created by God. He rejects theories of evolution that have no place for God. Not all theories of evolution, only those where God's creation of our souls is absent. God of course created the universe in which life evolved over billions of years.

The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.

In such a time scale, the Pope, along with mainstream scientists, in all likelihood has no problem with the moon being 4.6 billion years old. The latter plainly follows from the former.

DaleHill 10:57, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Andy your argument is that the pope cannot allow Catholic to explore and develop a theory that you deem to be inconsistent with your understanding of what the theory of evolution entails. However, what you would need papal evidence that says that theistic evolution is impossible and incompatible with Catholic faith. Many Catholics endorsing it, and Pope John Paul II permitting this endorsement, and explicitly stating that Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith points the other way. Order 17:40, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Folks, maybe Wikipedia is a better place for your misinformation. The Pope, I assure you, accepts one Adam as the ancestor of all humans and agrees with what Peter said as quoted above. The Old Earth is contrary to that, and thus is rejected. Neither DaleHill nor Order can quote anything to to the contrary, because it does not exist except in the wishful thinking of atheists who reject everything the Pope stands for anyway.--Aschlafly 18:50, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Andy, maybe you should have read the encyclical Human Genreris that was quoted. The pope does believe in one Adam, and I for example mentioned it myself that he is fine with evolution as long as it accepts one Adam, and that souls are god given. The pope doesn't think that it has to be contradictory to an Old Earth view, and that is also written in Human Genreris. He believed it so strongly, that he put it into an encyclical, something which is covered by his claim of infallibility. That you think that and old earth view is incompatible with a single Adam is well known, but it is official that the Catholic Church thinks otherwise. Order 19:39, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Like erosion, User:Order, you push for concepts that are logically contrary to faith. Why don't you disclose your own point of view first, so readers can see where you're coming from? What you say about the Pope, with whom I expect you to completely disagree on almost everything, is false. The Old Earthers reject the Flood circa 3000 B.C., for example, while the Pope must accept it as the first Pope does. Let's be up-front about that also.--Aschlafly 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)

The only concept I push is to accept the fact other people can disagree with your views and are still good Catholics, with the popes approval. If anything it is logically contrary to your faith. Thanks for asking about my views, but I am not the pope, and we were discussing the popes views. There are official documents by the Vatican detailing the popes view, so we don't have to guess what his views are. Why do you have difficulties to accept that the pope allows for views different from yours? If the pope says that people can be good Catholics and believe in theistic evolution, does it make your beliefs less true? Order 17:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

User:Order, you're not fooling anyone here. You don't quote from a pope to support your views, because no pope has supported your views. The first pope, Peter, stated very clearly in the Bible that the Flood occurred as described in the Bible. Now please show me one -- just one -- Old Earther who accepts that. You won't be able to. Please show me one pope -- just one -- who doubted what Peter said. You can't. So don't pretend that popes support Old Earthism as a way of pulling people away from their faith.--Aschlafly 18:32, 30 November 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure why you're debating evolution on the talk page for the moon, but he's not pretending anything, not trying to fool anyone, and not spreading misinformation... here's a source: http://catholicism.about.com/b/2007/08/04/evolution-and-catholicism-compatible-pope-says.htm . Happy to help, although I doubt that this will be the end of the discussion. --BillOhannity 18:56, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Here is quote from Pope Benedict: This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such. [19]

Additional sources: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, Message from the Pope, 1996, EVOLUTION AND THE POPE, The Pope and Evolution, POPE SUPPORTS EVOLUTION

Were you looking for something more specific, or professional, or clear-cut, though? Or perhaps these speeches have been misinterpreted, or just wildly spun and taken far out of context by the liberal media? Anyway, I hope these help.Feebasfactor 19:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Mr. Aschlafly. In light of this enlightenment I suggest you rewrite the article Pangea, its Old Earthism may erode your visitors faith: it may get them to believe in things from which disbelief in Christianity logically follows. While you are at it, perhaps review all the articles in the Category:Geology, there may be others amongst them promoting atheistic concepts. Perhaps some of the articles in the Category:Astronomy also need rewritten. In the article Universe, a meticulous Old Earthist explanation is set against a marginalised, weak descripton of the true Christian view which follows at the bottom of the page, giving the impression its not to be taken seriously.

DaleHill 08:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)

DaleHill, all the entries are constantly being improved here. You can mock the "true Christian view," but I suggest you consider giving it more credit than you do for what man has achieved.--Aschlafly 09:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)

DaleHill, thanks for drawing attention to those articles that need some work. I'll have a go at them myself, subject to time and me remembering. Philip J. Rayment 02:00, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Primeq's edits

The reason I reverted Primeq's edits are as follows:

• The edit was a POV argument regarding how one should use or not use sources. As such it has no place in an article about the moon, although would be appropriate on this talk page.
• The logic was faulty. There is nothing inconsistent with quoting a source with regard to observed facts whilst dismissing that source with regard to unobserved belief.

Philip J. Rayment 18:35, 23 November 2007 (EST)

• Nothing wrong, so long as it agrees with YEC beliefs, Philip. Those who believe in a older earth are branded here as atheists, and their edits reverted, branded as "illogical" and contrary to "facts" only observed by YEC's. That is indeed disturbing. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 18:49, 23 November 2007 (EST)

It has been pointed out more than once on this page in the last half hour that nobody is branding anyone as atheists simply for believing in an old Earth.

I don't understand your first sentence. The second part of your second sentence is unsubstantiated and I reject it.

Philip J. Rayment 19:00, 23 November 2007 (EST)

• If you say "old earth" is an atheistic belief, you are indeed branding all those who believe in a Earth older than 6,000 years as such. If you state many atheists believe in a "old earth" you are not. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

No, people frequently believe two contradictory things, so Christians (i.e. theists) believing something that is inherently atheistic does not mean that they are not Christians. Philip J. Rayment 19:13, 23 November 2007 (EST)

• So you cling to insulting others, by saying your way, or none at all, Philip? Your "truth" is greater than others? If that is not what you are saying, why do you insist upon always stating it as absolute "truth" and "fact", instead of qualifying it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians? Doing so does not denigrate what you believe, or make it wrong. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Jesus said that He was the only way to God. There's nothing wrong with saying that one thing is the truth if it is the truth. Truth is greater than lie; I'm merely claiming that a young Earth is the truth. If you want to refute that, fine, but you won't get far refuting it by asserting that I'm not allowed to claim it as the truth. To qualify it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians would be very misleading, given that it has been the traditional view of Bible-believers for thousands of years, and is still accepted by a significant and growing number of Bible-believers. Philip J. Rayment 00:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The question remains - why are we cherry-picking NASA's statements? Does anyone fully understand and can they ratify the laser-interferomtry techniques supposedly used to measure the rate of moon-recedence? Are there reasons to believe the laser-measurements, yet disbelieve the isotope-ratio techniques used to age the moon? I'm sensing a disturbing ethic here of selective accreditation. I'm going to need some help. Regardless of these edits which (out of respect for the Conservapedia social-contract)I will not merely just re-enter and thereby start a cycle of edit/revert followed by account cancellation, I do believe some kind of statement of moon-age is warranted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primeq (talk) --17:38, 23 November 2007

We are not "cherry-picking". I've already explained above the distinction (observation vs. belief). Yes, there are good reasons to disbelieve the dating methods, as explained in radiometric dating. In essence, dating is a calculation based on measurements and assumptions—age is not something that can be directly measured—and those assumptions include an assumption of long ages. So using them to prove long ages is a circular argument.

Regarding a "statement of moon-age", I have reinstated that, with my apologies for completely reverting your edit rather than retaining that useful bit.

Philip J. Rayment 00:42, 24 November 2007 (EST)

• Perhaps the problem is one of my own, or other's ignorance? To me, an "old earth" is one significantly older than 6,000 years. Yet, I keep seeing figures ranging from 1 billion to more than 10 billion years. For those who have not committed their life to Biblical study, and that of Geology, it becomes very confusing when there are such drastic differences introduced in and out of this discussion. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Primeq, who pathetically has already given up, radiometric dating relies on defective circular logic. As a matter of sound logic it's not worth relying on, because it assumes that atomic-level decay has been constant since the beginning of the universe. That's implausible and circular with respect to its application.--Aschlafly 20:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

"Many" atheists edit

I reverted the qualifier "many" from "promoted by many atheists". Old earth theories are promoted by atheists. There is no denying that. Virtually all atheists believe in old earth theories. Very few, or none, Catholics or any other Christian promotes old earth theories.--Aschlafly 19:23, 23 November 2007 (EST)

You are exaggerate the link between Old Earth beliefs and atheism. Miller et al found a negative correlation between belief in evolution and belief in God, but the correlation isn't as strong as you suggest. For example, 78% of all American believe Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct. which makes them OLD Earthers. Given this number, and according to your logic at most 23% can believe in God, 22% who do not believe in an old earth, plus 1% who believe in God and an old earth. But we all know that at least 80% of all Americans believes in God. This means that at least more than 50% (close to 60%) must believe in as well God as in an old earth. You probably know some.

To complete the picture I should add that according to the study, 62% of all Americans believe "Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life." If we sum this up, this means that at least 40% believe in an old earth, and at the same time that humans were created by God. You might find this all unreasonable, but it is what people apparently believe. Order 11:22, 26 November 2007 (EST)

That's a loaded, vague poll question. The more precise and neutral the question becomes, the lower the percentage of Americans who really believe in what atheists teach about an Old Earth. For example, Christians almost unanimously believe in one Adam as the father of all mankind, as Jesus atoned for Adam's original sin. Old Earth doctrine rejects that.--Aschlafly 13:02, 26 November 2007 (EST)

There is nothing vague about the statement: "Over periods of millions of years ...". It is obviously an old earth view. And agreed, and I mentioned it, there is also a majority believing that "Human beings were created by God ...", thus in an Adam. And quite a few people believe both. Order 17:56, 26 November 2007 (EST)

I've not studied the figures, so I'll leave Andy to defend his statements there, but I will add that I think we are not talking about a correlation of beliefs, but a basis of beliefs. The church, unfortunately, long ago capitulated to the majority view of scientists and felt that they had to "reinterpret" the Bible according to the findings of science, not realising that when we are talking about the past (long ages, the evolutionary family tree, etc.), that we are talking about history, not science, and that these scientists were basing their claims on naturalistic assumptions, not on scientific evidence. Therefore a very large number of Christians today accept long ages and (to a lesser extent) evolution, but even though these idea are accepted by many Christians, they are still at heart atheistic ideas. Philip J. Rayment 20:36, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Long ages are not necessarily atheistic, there are non-Christian cosmologies, like Hinduism that have no problem with long ages, and of course many Christians that have no problem with them either. Long ages by itself aren't atheistic. You might argue that they are in error, that the Church gave up it young earth for political gains, but criticism of the old world view and criticism of the Church for adopting it is just a tangent. The subject was the strong correlation between atheism and old earth belief - Andy said repeatedly that less of 1 in 100 believers also believes also in an old earth - and fact remains that a clear majority of Americans do combine a belief in God with a belief in long ages. They might be in error, but that doesn't change the fact that they do believe it, which implies that the correlation is by no means as strong as Andy suggests, nor that it is inevitable.Order 21:47, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Hinduism is arguably an atheistic religion. If, as I understand it believes, all is God, then the universe must have created itself, which is essentially the atheistic view. It certainly doesn't propose a personal creator God. But I might be stretching things a tad there, and that argument is not my main response.

The reason that I called long ages atheistic is because long ages were the result of an attempt to explain the universe without God. And explaining the universe without God is still the only justification for long ages; you certainly don't need long ages if you have God, and the evidence for long ages is ambiguous at best.

Philip J. Rayment 04:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Hinduism is polytheistic and does have a creator God, and some even argue that it almost mono-theistsic and that the different gods are only different aspects of the same divine being. But it is by no means atheistic, this in contrast with Buddhism. Anyway, Hinduism is a tangent, given that this this religion will only account for a few of the at least 60% of Americans that believe in an creator God, and accept at the same time an old earth view.

You are right that an atheistic world view, together with the theory of evolution, and modern astronomy requires an old earth. However, the question is not if atheism requires an old earth, the argument is that an old earth view requires atheism. And this is not the case. The existence of a creator god does not require that the earth is young. And a majority of American believes exactly this, even if you disagree with then, and even if they are wrong. Order 07:12, 27 November 2007 (EST)

I'm arguing that the idea of an old Earth is atheistic because that's the origin of and continues to be the driver of the idea, not because of a correlation of beliefs.

As far as the existence of a creator God not requiring a young Earth is concerned, this is only true if the creator god is one of your own making; it is not true of the creator God described in the Bible. The "evidence" for the long ages is in the rock layers containing fossils, which bear evidence of death, suffering, cancer, etc. This would make the creator God the creator of death, suffering, disease, etc. before the appearance of man, whereas the God of the Bible can only do good, and made a good world that subsequently became bad when mankind rejected God.

Philip J. Rayment 20:53, 27 November 2007 (EST)

We all know that 'your God is incompatible with an old Earth, fair enough, but we also know that the God of 60% of all American is incompatible with it. No need to convince me, convince the 60% of Americans that disagree with you. To clarify the difference, consider the following questions

• Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 6000 years ago?
• Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
• Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
• Would the creator God of the bible have been able to create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?

Most Christians answer "Yes" to all of these questions. He is all powerful, isn't he. A creator god that wouldn't be able to create an old earth, wouldn't be exactly all powerful. You however try to answer the following question:

• Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 6000 years ago?
• Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 10.000 years ago?
• Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000 years ago?
• Did the creator God of the bible create the Earth 100.000.000 years ago?

You can answer at most one of these with "Yes", and we know that you will answer "Yes" to the first question, and "No" to the others . But we also know that 78% of all American answer the same question it with "No", and believe that the earth has been around for a long time. Order 22:21, 27 November 2007 (EST)

I was talking about the God of the Bible, not specifically "my" God. And yes, all those Christians who have compromised with the atheistic origins myths need to be shown where they are wrong, which is what various creation ministries are progressively doing.

Until you show them that their view of the biblical God is incorrect, it is still correct to state they do believe in what they believe, namely an old universe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Order (talk)

I'm not disputing that that's what they believe; I'm disputing that that is relevant to whether or not long ages can be described as atheistic. Philip J. Rayment 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Theism and atheism are both human views on the universe, and as such it is relevant to observe that there are humans that subscribe to theistic old earth view, such a Hindu cosmology, or Christian theistic evolution. It shows that you can combine theism and long ages. Order 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)

I think we are going around in circles now. Philip J. Rayment 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)

We are. In essence, your point is that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the bible that you defend, and you call everything else "atheistic", while my point is that all world views that includes a God ar "theistic", and only those philosophies and views "atheistic" that see no need for a god. Order 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Continuing around the circle... No, I'm not saying that "theism" means to accept the literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm talking about Christianity, not theism. And I'm not calling everything else atheistic. Philip J. Rayment 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

One extra round... But, there are Christian old earth views, in wich God play an essential role, e.g. as prime mover, aren't there? Order 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)

There are Christians who hold such views, but it is not a part of Christianity, which is defined not by the views of its leaders or followers, but by the Bible. Philip J. Rayment 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)

This is a view of one part of Christianity. Catholic Church for example believes that while the Bible is the most important source, it has to be read the tradition of the Church in mind. Orthodox Churches has similar views that faith does not rely only on scripture. It is obvious that you subscribe to a protestant view, but this is just one of the many branches. Order 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)

The Creator God of the Bible is not able to (a) do things that are logically nonsense, like creating a yellow question, or (b) do things that are against his nature, such as lie or contradict Himself.

The creator God of the Bible is not able to create the Earth 10,000, 100,000, or 100,000,000 years ago, because no such time existed. Time is part of His creation, so there is no such thing as 10,000 etc. years ago. The question presupposes that God creates something at a point in time, whereas he actually created time. Time itself began 6,000 years ago. It's like asking if God can begin something before it begins. That's nonsense.

So, God had no way to influence when the world started? He couldn't make it, and then have his Son arrive, say 4001 years later, rather than 4000. Put in an extra day between Adam and Jesus? Or an extra month. Or an extra year. In this case the universe would be predetermined, and not just for us, but even for god. Indeed, I think that very few Christians would agree with your limited understanding of the abilities of God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Order (talk)

Your first question in that paragraph still presupposes that God would create at some point in time. God is outside of time, creates everything including time, and time gets measured from that point.

For your second question, yes, He could decide how much later Jesus came. How is that relevant to the point?

Do you really think that most Christians would believe that God can sin?

Philip J. Rayment 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Your last question suggests that you think that I am talking about logical paradoxes, but I am not. If he can create time, he should be able to create any amount of time. That's not a paradox. Lets call the beginning of time year 0. He could then decide to have his son arrive 4000 years later, and have us discuss it 6000 years later, and have the world end some short while after it. I guess this is your view of the world, since it is consistent with a literal interpretation of the bible. But since he can create time, he could also create the universe at time 0, then send his son 10.000 years later, and have us discuss it 12.000 years later. It is as logically consistent as the first version. Theist that believe in an old earth believe that a few million years elapsed between the beginning and the birth of his Son. There is nothing illogical about it. And it consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible. Order 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)

I didn't think that you intended it to be a logical paradox; but that's what it amounted to, given that we are not really talking about hypotheticals, but history. Yes, He could have had us discussing it 12,000 years after the year zero, but we are not at the year zero trying to determine when we might discuss it, but at the year 2007 AD discussing whether, given what we know, creation could have been 12,000 years ago. It is not "consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible", any more than "go" is consistent with "stop". Philip J. Rayment 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)

All theories about the world are hypothetical. There might be an objective truth out there, but what is in your head is hypothetical. And yes, theistic evolution is hypothetical as well. And if you think that the less literal interpretation is contradictory, tell them about it. They will tell you that even you interpret not all parts of the bible literally. Buts we get on an endless tangent, since we both know where these arguments go, and we both know which parts of the scripture that are typically used in this argument. It is like watching reruns. Order 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)

The non-literal interpretation of the creation account is contradictory, and I do tell them about it, and they have no real answer. I don't read all the Bible literally, because I recognise metaphor, parable, etc. I only take literally the parts that were intended to be read literally, such as the creation account. Philip J. Rayment 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

The crucial difference is then they also read Genesis metaphorically, where "day" translates to "age". But that doesn't make them atheists. Order 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Whether or not something is defined as a "metaphor" is determined by the speaker/writer, not by the listener/reader. So it is incorrect to read history as metaphor, for example, but correct to read metaphor as metaphor. I do the latter; people who do the former are reading it incorrectly. And I have never said that someone reading it incorrectly makes that person an atheist. Philip J. Rayment 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)

The real question, therefore, is essentially what He did do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago. The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable". So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.

Philip J. Rayment 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)

First, history is a science, and just because something is in the past, doesn't mean that it beyond the realm of science. All observable facts are in the past, and it hasn't stopped science. The biblical answer depends on your interpretation, and with your interpretation the answer is "no". But, it happens to be the case that at least 60% of Americans do not share your interpretation. And this regardless of whether any of these interpretations is true.

Anyway the real question was how strong the correlation between atheism and an old view. And a secondary question was is an old earth view implies atheism. And the correlation isn't that big, and you can combine an old world view with theism, and people prove it every day. Order 09:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Perhaps history can be considered a science, but it is not an empirical science in the same sense as, say, chemistry. Scientists cannot observe, measure, or otherwise test unique past events, and in many cases (e.g. Big Bang) are incapable of reproducing them. And even in cases where they can replicate them, it wouldn't prove that it happened that way the first time. For example, showing that scales can be turned into feathers shows that such as thing is possible, not that it did actually happen in the past.

I'd like to know how you can observe any facts in the past. The only things I can observe are in the present. Once they are in the past, I can no longer observe them. If you can, may I please borrow your time machine?

Welcome to my time machine. Lean back and look out of the window. The tree as you see it, doesn't exist anymore, it existed a fraction of a fraction of a second ago. If thats not cool for you, put on your sun glasses and look into the sun. You see as the sun was 8 minutes ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Order (talk)

Even though the light has taken a moment to arrive, we are still observing in the present within any meaningful understanding of the word. That sort of answer will not allow me to see what you were doing yesterday, let alone things like dinosaurs turning into birds 65 million years ago. Philip J. Rayment 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)

When I look at some files in a library, as historian frequently do, I look at them in the present, and not in the past. No real difference. Order 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)

The difference is that the books were frequently written by, or based on accounts of, people who witnessed the events. This does not apply to things such as the Big Bang. Philip J. Rayment 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

But you do not only accept eye-witness accounts. I mean if you get into you kitchen and the door of your fridge is open, and there is water all over the floor I would assume that the ice melted, even I there wouldn't be somebody who witnessed it. Order 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)

True, I do accept things other than eye-witness accounts, but such things are not science. So I would assume, and therefore believe that the ice melted, but I couldn't claim that as science. Philip J. Rayment 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)

According to all philosophies of science, be it Popper, Lakatos, Carnap, Feyerabend, or Kuhn, and despite their disagreement on how science works, this is exactly what science is about. Assumptions about the world, and the quest for supporting or contradicting evidence. Order 21:29, 29 November 2007 (EST)

The biblical answer depends on what the Bible actually says. If you are driving and encounter a "stop" sign, do you argue with the policeman that what it means depends on how you interpret it? Or do you recognise that it means that you are to stop?

You are restating your opinion that whether or not long ages are atheistic depends on the correlation between beliefs. I have a different opinion, and you are simply restating yours rather than justifying it. Despite me pointing it out, you are still ignoring the distinction between theism and belief in the Bible. You cannot combine an old-world view and belief in the Bible and remain consistent. Many people do combine the two, but they are not being consistent.

Philip J. Rayment 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Regarding the replication of history, one need not replicate the actual event (such as the Big Bang). What must be repeatable is the observation, so in other words all cosmologists can observe the COBE background radiation, or the Hubble motion of surrounding stars which are clear predictions of the Big Bang Theory. Likewise, scales evolving into feathers can be observed on the fossils of Archaeopteryx, or other feathered dinosaur fossils. SSchultz 23:21, 28 November 2007 (EST)

No, simply repeating an observation that is not the event doesn't mean that the event itself has occurred. For one, you also have to be certain that the observations are incompatible with alternative theories.

And scales evolving into feathers is something happening, and you don't see something happening on a fossil, any more than you see movement on a still photograph. Additionally, the feathers on Archaeopteryx are fully-formed, so that blows that claim.

Philip J. Rayment 00:34, 29 November 2007 (EST)

How do you see a seed spring? Or how do you see the tide? Or how do you see the change in fashion? Order 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)

By observing them as they are happening. Your point? Philip J. Rayment 04:06, 29 November 2007 (EST)

If you cannot observe what I was doing yesterday, how can you observe what I was wearing yesterday? Talking about observing changing fashion. Order 08:09, 29 November 2007 (EST)

I (in theory) did observe what you were wearing yesterday. I observed it yesterday. That's why I said that I observe them whilst they are happening. But nobody was around to observe scales evolving into feathers. Philip J. Rayment 08:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

What you observed yesterday, happened yesterday, and this experience is not in the present anymore. You refer to memories of the past. You might trust them they are your memories. But what happens if your eyewitness is another person that you may or may not trust? Do you have an eyewitness for him witnessing what he says he saw. Of do you try to get him to tell you some details that you can check now in the present, to figure out if his story holds water. And what is there was no eyewitness. Like in the fridge example. Do you then give up apriori to explain what happened? Order 09:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)

With eyewitness accounts, you do have to be able to trust the eyewitness. And I would only consider eyewitness accounts "scientific" if the eyewitness make his observations in a scientific manner (although even if not, I would still consider them reliable if I trusted the eyewitness). Regarding an eyewitness to the eyewitness, the Bible actually cautions us to not take the word of one person, but to only rely on two or more eyewitnesses.

Philip J. Rayment 20:54, 29 November 2007 (EST)

So what do you do if there is no eyewitness? Order 21:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Generally speaking, I don't claim to know for certain. Philip J. Rayment 01:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Just like the rest of us. Order 08:52, 1 December 2007 (EST)

If only! Unfortunately, many people insist that evolution, long ages, etc. are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses. Philip J. Rayment 17:25, 1 December 2007 (EST)

The problem with that statement is that there are many other people who insist that creationism, short ages, etc are certain, even though there have been no eyewitnesses for that either. --BillOhannity 17:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

That's begging the question, because according to those (us) creationists, there have been eyewitnesses, such as Adam, Noah, etc., and of course God. Philip J. Rayment 18:01, 1 December 2007 (EST)

And many biologists would claim to be witnesses to evolution, and geologists would claim to be witnesses to a 4.5 billion year old earth. How are you choosing who counts as a witness and who doesn't? --BillOhannity 18:19, 1 December 2007 (EST)

It is absolute nonsense to suggest that biologists have observed the evolutionary family tree from first cell to human, or even any stage of that like dinosaurs turning into birds. The same applies to the geology. No geologist has seen the supposed 4.5 billion years of the Earth's history. Virtually all of these events supposedly occurred before humans appeared on the planet, so that claim is abusing the term "eyewitness". If a person claimed to a judge that they witnessed a bank robbery because they saw the sign on the door saying that it was closed because of a robbery he would likely be charged with contempt of court. Philip J. Rayment 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)

That, of course, is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. It is my opinion that believing a book written thousands of years ago has more knowledge of the earth and the universe than researchers who have the advantage of all modern technology to aid in their research. It is equally nonsense, in my opinion, to claim that people in a book written thousands of years ago are eyewitnesses. Sure, scientists did not witness all 4.5 billion years of the earth's history, but they have conducted all sorts of experiments to prove the age of the earth. All you know about your supposed eyewitnesses is what the Bible says about them. --BillOhannity 10:42, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Not sure why you insists so much on eyewitnesses. It is known that they are particularly reliable sources of evidence. Either way, in empirical science nothing is absolute certain. People who believe that a scientific theory is absolute certain can't be scientists. Only religion tries to give absolute certainties. You can't apply the mindset of religion to science. Order 20:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)

In one sense, eyewitnesses are all that you have. Even current scientific research of, for example, chemicals, is eyewitnesses (the scientists) reporting what they have seen (through the microscope). For historical events, such as events in ancient Rome, eyewitnesses are virtually all we have to go on (or later accounts based on earlier accounts going back to the original witnesses; but even there the closer the accounts are to the original, the more accurate they are generally considered to be). Archaeologists can glean some information from stone artifacts, pottery fragments, etc., but the best source of information is written documents, i.e. written accounts by eyewitnesses or based ultimately on eyewitness accounts.

Scientists will claim/admit (depending on the circumstances) that nothing in science can be absolutely certain, but when it comes to evolution and long ages (among other things), they effectively say that it is certain. Evolution is no longer a "theory" (in the layman sense of "uncertain"), but "fact", and no alternative view (creation or intelligent design) is allowed to be considered.

I agree that you can't (shouldn't) apply the principles of religion to science, as "religion" claims certainty because it is the revelation of the omniscient and infallible God, which science isn't. So why does science claim that God got it wrong?

Philip J. Rayment 02:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Tides and the earth-moon distance

I was wrong about the receding of the moon. [20] Someone please revert me. :-( --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:17, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Not sure which of your edits requires reversion, Ed. I like your removal of the subtitle in the first page of the entry!--Aschlafly 15:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I know what he is talking about, because I was going to ask why he removed it. I've fixed it. Philip J. Rayment 08:55, 25 November 2007 (EST)

This article is about the Moon

The talk in this page has evolved (pun intended) into general diatribes about the Catholic Pope, evolution, creation. I'd suggest this page to be archived, at least those discussions not specifically about the Moon or its origin. Leopeo 06:44, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Actually a good portion of the article itself is devoted to the moon in regards to creationism and evolution, or rather young earth and old earth positions - hence the debate here. Feebasfactor 07:51, 29 November 2007 (EST)

No, it hasn't evolved: evolution is impossible. It's actually devolved, which is possible!  :-) Philip J. Rayment 07:56, 29 November 2007 (EST)