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

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Answer to Aschlafy)
(Another observation)
(6 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 227: Line 227:
  
 
:What if we assume that geologists really do think that the Great Lakes were made by icebergs 10,000 years ago instead of 10,000,000? There is still no proof of this, not even a computer model (which I assure you could be easily done). Your argument is much ado about nothing. [[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 14:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
 
:What if we assume that geologists really do think that the Great Lakes were made by icebergs 10,000 years ago instead of 10,000,000? There is still no proof of this, not even a computer model (which I assure you could be easily done). Your argument is much ado about nothing. [[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 14:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Observations on some deceitful points in this article ==
 +
 +
Hi. I'm new here after finding this site from a google search on abortion. I also came across this, um, peculiar article. I looked at some of the facts presented and it looks deliberately misleading:
 +
 +
*For example, because freshwater lakes appear to be "young" (subjective term but we'll go with it) has no indication on the age of the earth.
 +
 +
*The earth's magnetic field is indeed declining, but when I go to that NASA site, in the ''same, exact'' paragraph, it says:
 +
 +
{{Cquote|There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million years <u>according to geological evidence</u>. The time between reversals seems to be growing longer, and is currently about 300,000 years or so. The last one of these happened about 770,000 years ago (0.77 on the graph). We are currently living during a period that has been called the Brunhes Magnetic Chron when the South Magnetic Pole is in the Northern Hemisphere. During the previous Matumaya Magnetic Chron, the North Magnetic Pole was in the Northern Hemisphere! Note that, from the polarity figure, at a time 0.94 million years ago (940,000 years ago) the magnetic field reverse itself by going nearly to 'zero' but then after a few thousand years it recovered and began to increase in strength. During the next 150,000 years it rose to a maximum strength and then began to decline. Notice, also, how fast the magnetic field recovers after it reaches 'zero', in some cases much less than 10,000 years.}}
 +
 +
.. but then the article has:
 +
 +
''Presently, Earth's magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. ... Not comparable to an old earth''
 +
 +
Kind of deceptive and misleading, if not blatantly lying, no?
 +
 +
Thanks for your feedback, [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 15:45, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
 +
 +
===Another observation===
 +
Religulous Right [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=786079&oldid=786069 undid] an edit of mine, so I'll explain why I removed it. First off, it's highly speculative and opinionated to an individual:
 +
*Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.
 +
*Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth. Thanks [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:21, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
 +
: I realize you're new here. However, you can't just walk into somebody's living room and strart deleting their work because you don't approve of it. Either you make your case here or contribute to the project with material before you start deleting stuff. If all new useres starting deleting everything they didn't like we would end up with no material. Also, if you didn't notice, there were four footnotes in the section you deleted. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:47, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Revision as of 23:47, June 8, 2010

For older discussions, see the archives: Archive 1.

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

Freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young.

I'd like to have this point removed: The previous discussion has shown that it doesn't have any merit.

FrankC aka ComedyFan 15:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

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

continued existence of fragile natural arches

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

Great Lakes

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

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

Salt Water Lakes

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

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

FrankC aka ComedyFan 14:12, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

Reply to above 4 comments

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

What's a counterexample?

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

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

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

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

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

So, how do the examples fit in?

Frank, the style of your remarks reflect a lack of an open mind towards this issue. You state, "Since the 18th century, scientist[s] are convinced ... over long periods of time." This is an historical distortion, and unhelpful to an open-minded discussion even if were true.
I welcome open-minded discussions, but closed-minded discussions are often a waste of time. So please show some signs of an open mind about this first. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 11:10, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
I'm all for an open-minded discussion, too, and I'm sorry if my previous comment didn't convey this. So, let's drop the historical aspect, and just say:
  • Old Earth: The surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time, and the rate of this change is roughly constant.
  • Young Earth: The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped by the Great Flood a couple of thousands years ago.
But I hope you can agree with the basic properties (points 1-3 above) a counterexample to an Old Earth should have?
FrankC aka ComedyFan 07:46, 12 May 2010 (EDT)
Frank, are you trying to refute any of the counterexamples? (In which case please provide some actual evidence) Your closed-minded insistence on causing argument seems pointless. ArnoldR 08:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

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

Fragile natural arches exist, as there are always formed new ones. Old natural arches collapse, but others may replace them. What if there were no natural arches? I don't think that anybody had thought of them then.

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

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

The "ice age theory" was a patch to try to explain away the counterexample. The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.--Andy Schlafly 00:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
It quite a leap to get from Great Lakes were created during the last ice age to all lakes were created during the last ice age! There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the Great Flood, though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.
BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above?
FrankC aka ComedyFan 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample.
As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here:
1. it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.
This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility.
2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally:
No, this is not required, but illustrates a basic flaw in Old-Earth-thinking. Do you think mathematicians accept the validity of a hypothesis as long as no competing hypothesis has been proven? Of course not.
3. the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.
This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--Andy Schlafly 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
implausible ice age theory? What's implausible about that? It just doesn't fit your YEC preconceptions.
  1. Yes, I include the requirement of plausibility. What's the point of implausible counterexamples?
  2. Is there a third theory I haven't heard of? If the Earth isn't young, it is old.
  3. This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates. No, I'm afraid, that' just obvious common sense.
FrankC aka ComedyFan 10:55, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
Frank, if you're not going to address my substantive points, then please don't respond. I make a direct analogy to mathematical hypotheses and you ignored it. Do you really think a mathematical hypothesis must be true if there is no proof for the converse?--Andy Schlafly 11:16, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the substantive points, so I try to make myself clearer by using the language of logic. So, let's C be a counterexample to the Old Earth Theory (OET). If C is true, than OET should be false, that's the first point:
1: C ⇒ ~OET. If C is a good counterexample, than this equation should be obvious for everyone.
I thought the Young Earth Theory (YET) and the Old Earth Theory to be complementary, so YET = ~OET. Therefore obviously
2: C ⇒ YET
And from 1, one gets
3: OET ⇒ ~C
I hope that this straightforward formulation is less confusing than my verbose the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. I formulated it this way, as all this isn't as exact as one would wish for: what's an obvious relation for one, needs quite an elaborate explanation for another.
But now for The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago . As I said before, OET don't claim that these lakes existed millions of years ago, but are quite recent. You then said : The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice. So, what's your counterexample now? Do you claim that the OET implies that all lakes are of the same age or were created in the same way? It seems to me that you are saying: As there are lakes near the Equator, the Great Lakes are millions of years old - according to OET. But that's just a strawman, and shouldn't be included in the list.
FrankC aka ComedyFan 10:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

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

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

An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age

Has anyone done this extrapolation? Without it, the point is moot.

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

FrankC aka ComedyFan 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

Lakes again

  • It was repeatedly explained why the Great Lakes are no countexample to an Old Earth.
  • Aschlafly concluded: Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample."
  • Aschlafly, could you reformulate the counterexample in question? Thanks.

FrankC aka ComedyFan 10:49, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

There are large freshwater lakes near the Equator. Do you think an "Ice Age" formed them also?--Andy Schlafly 11:10, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
To quote myself: There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the Great Flood, though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this. FrankC aka ComedyFan 11:15, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
You may quote yourself, but your answer was less than direct. You seem to admit that that the Ice Age did NOT form the large freshwater lakes near the Equator. But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also. That defies explanation consistent with an Old Earth theory.--Andy Schlafly 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
Pfft, in the 70's liberals were saying that the earth was cooling. Now, its supposedly warming. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their tune about the "Ice Age" in 40 years.

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

I'm afraid that your confidence is misplaced - the examinations and tests of geologists lead to different results. Let's have a closer look - what lakes are we talking about? Near to the equator - say in the strip between 5° North and 5° South - the number of lakes of considerable size isn't big:

  • South America: none
  • Indonesia: Lake Toba on Sumatra, Lake Tempe and Lake Poso on Sulawesi. Lake Toba is the largest volcanic lake in the world, resulting from an eruption 69,000 - 78,000 years ago. So, it's older (according to the test of geologists) than the last Ice Age, but fairly young on a geological scale. Lake Tempe is a flood plain of an average depth of 5m, so it's quite volatile in geological standards. Lake Poso is a tectonic lake and regarded as ancient (1 - 2 million years).
  • Africa: Here you find the African Great Lakes, in the area of our interest especially, the Lake Victoria, Lake Tanganyika, Lake Turkana, Lake Albert, Lake Kivu, and Lake Edward. These are located in the Great Rift Valley, which is - according to geologists - a continental rift zone. Though you may call Lake Victoria young - as it's only 500,000 old and dried out a couple of times, the other lakes are estimated to be roughly 4 million years old.

All of these lakes are older than the American Great Lakes. So, I repeat my request: please, remove The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago from the list of counterexamples:

  • it is misleading, as atheistic geologists don't claim that these lakes have existed millions of years ago
  • your alternate approach (Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample) doesn't work neither, as there are ancient (≈ 4 million years) freshwater lakes.

FrankC aka ComedyFan 11:47, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.
I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the Old Earth theory? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aschlafly (talk)
None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.
On the contrary, there is little doubt under geologists that all of the lakes above are not young (with the possible exception of Lake Tempe) . Every textbook on geology will tell you that the oldes of Great African Lakes were formed ≈ 4 mya ago, with Lake Victoria being the youngest of the lot[1]. The Toba event took place ≈ 70,000 years ago.
Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.
This doesn't make sense. Carbon dating is only used on relatively young (holecenic) freshwater sources. (More in a separate section)
I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the Old Earth theory?
I thought that I've answered this question, too, but I'll elaborate:
  • no, arguing against one theory doesn't defend the other. But both theories can't be true simultaneously - though both could be false. OTOH, there aren't that many concurring theories out there. And entries like this of your fellow sysop Conservative show that on this page, Old Earth Theory and Young Earth Theory are put against each other.
FrankC aka ComedyFan 08:58, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? Of course not. The Old Earth theory is disproved by the numerous counterexamples, and creationism is irrelevant to that disproof or a reasoned discussion of it.--Andy Schlafly 14:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory

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

What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--Andy Schlafly 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last Ice Age nor for the Great Flood.
The creation of the Great Lakes however can be studied by geologists who examined the history of this area. Their surveys paint an interesting picture of the formation of the Great Lakes (here an introduction).
FrankC aka ComedyFan 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)
Frank, you repeatedly reason in an "either-or" manner, as though the only two possibilities are the Old Earth and your view of creationism. That's not logical or scientific. Both could be wrong. No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.


If the Ice Age theory provided a plausible explanation for the Great Lakes and other observed formations (such as the Mississippi bluffs), then a computer simulation would be easy to build. But it hasn't been done, which suggests that the Ice Age theory is implausible in explaining all that is observed.--Andy Schlafly 12:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)
  • both could be false, both aren't simulated globally
  • are you confident that such a simulation could be easily build? The formation of the Great Lakes has been simulatied - that's something I'm confident of.
FrankC aka ComedyFan 12:24, 2 June 2010 (EDT)
(Could you please answer to my substantive edits in the previous section? Thanks. FrankC aka ComedyFan 12:25, 2 June 2010 (EDT))
Computer simulations would be easy to make. scientists clearly have access to computers. If they're so confident of their "theories" why not make an accurate simulation and add that as proof? I think they know there irratioinal beliefs won't help up to scruteny. FrankC, just have an open mind. --ReligiousRight 12:36, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

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

  1. All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,[2] and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

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

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

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

FrankC aka ComedyFan 09:08, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

  1. John Reader, Africa, National Geographic 9/2001
  2. http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf

Answer to Aschlafy

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

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

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

  • Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.
  • The circumference and the diameter of a bronze vessel are given as 30 units and 10 units. Therefore, the Bible claims that π equals 3.

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

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

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

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

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

FrankC aka ComedyFan 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

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

Observations on some deceitful points in this article

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

  • For example, because freshwater lakes appear to be "young" (subjective term but we'll go with it) has no indication on the age of the earth.
  • The earth's magnetic field is indeed declining, but when I go to that NASA site, in the same, exact paragraph, it says:


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

.. but then the article has:

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

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

Thanks for your feedback, DouglasM 15:45, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Another observation

Religulous Right undid an edit of mine, so I'll explain why I removed it. First off, it's highly speculative and opinionated to an individual:

  • Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.
  • Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth. Thanks DouglasM 19:21, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
I realize you're new here. However, you can't just walk into somebody's living room and strart deleting their work because you don't approve of it. Either you make your case here or contribute to the project with material before you start deleting stuff. If all new useres starting deleting everything they didn't like we would end up with no material. Also, if you didn't notice, there were four footnotes in the section you deleted. --ReligiousRight 19:47, 8 June 2010 (EDT)