Talk:Jurassic

Intro

This needs an edit. It's not 'according to evolutionary scientists' it's 'according to geologists', and there should be a citation. However, the edit page doesn't seem to be the same as the article, so I don't want to edit it myself. Britinme 6:30pm 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Why does this article even have a section about the YEC views? I know this point has been used elsewhere before, but shouldn't this just be to define what the jurassic period is? It doesn't matter if it's an idea to do with evolution or YEC, it's a defined time period. If you were to talk about the Industrial Age, you wouldn't make a claim that an anti-industrial person doesn't believe it happened. Jrssr5 14:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I would agree, even though some do not believe the evidence does not mean that the terminology should not be presented. The Jurassic period is not a time scale created by evolutionists, it was created by geologists. --TimS 14:47, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

There's that too. I also noticed CPAdmin1 reverted my edit, so I've asked him to reply as to why. Jrssr5 14:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You know, a geologist does not have to believe in evolution to believe that the earth is millions of years old. James Hutton, in 1786, presented that the earth was older than what was believed. This is almost 50 years before Darwin published his first work. I think the first line should be replaced for it is false.--TimS 14:52, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

For everyone's information, I did a different version of this article, which Conservative reverted. I have been in discussion with him since about having my version reinstated. Philip J. Rayment 06:04, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Philip, That looks to be one of the best edits I have seen for this page.--TimS 10:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. It was probably a bit brief, but it was a start that could have been expanded on. Philip J. Rayment 11:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Young earth?

It says that earth is young, but that is because the layers of the earth are constantly changing

Easy, easy, not need to bomb me, but the Carbon-14 tests proves that there are things older than 10000 years, and another "prove": god didn't say that :D Schwarze 20:53, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Carbon-14 dating is based on the presumption that Biblical history is wrong (it assumes no Flood, therefore assumes not effect on the C14 balance in the atmosphere from the Flood), so cannot be used to disprove the Flood, as the argument assumes what it attempts to prove. Philip J. Rayment 05:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

My point I'm not disproving the flood, i saw a good doccumentary explaining it, And the C14 test is based on the level of decay of the Carbon, not on the quantity, but Earth cannot be stable in 6000 years, it's still pretty active geoloically. And that god didn't mentioned the BIG BANG doesn't mean it didn't existed, it means that it was't god's point, God didn't talked about polar bears, atoms, superstring theory and Dolphins, yet they exist, if god wanted to metion every friggin' thing that exists in the universe, the bible wouldn't be finished by now, and the most important: we wouldn't need to do all that helluva effort to arrive here, to nuclear fission, flight and modern medical cures, it would have been just plain easy to just say "God said that, now STFU" and just relax, but God gave us a "starting point": The Bible. It gave us that book saying "the rest is up to you", and he did great. We started questioning the universe and developing new technologies to understand it, some of them were used wisely, some not, but at the end we are here :D Schwarze 20:26, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

BTW:Where the heck does the bible mention the age of earth? Schwarze 20:26, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

C14 is based on the C12:C14 ratio, which is determined by measuring the quantities of each. The quantities are affected by how much decay there has been.

You are right that God didn't mention the Big Bang doesn't mean it doesn't happen. However, that He did mention things which are incompatible with the Big Bang does mean that it didn't happen (assuming you trust God more than man). We started studying (rather than "questioning") the universe because we had a Christian worldview that told us that God's creation was worthy and amenable of study.

For the age of the Earth, see Date of Creation.

Philip J. Rayment 06:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Where does God said something that doesn't coincide with the big bang? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aknot (talk)

For one, the span of time from the start of creation to the appearance of man was under six days. For another, the Earth was created before the stars. I'm sure that you won't agree that this is the way it happened, but hopefully you'll agree that (a) God (or at least the Bible) does say these things, and (b) that these are incompatible with the Big Bang, thus agreeing that my claim that you were questioning is correct. Philip J. Rayment 23:16, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Plot hole: If earth was created AFTER the stars, the light of stars wouldnt have reached us yet (the only way to make it have sense is with the B theory) and most of the sky would be black. And in 6 days from the Big Bang, most of the elements needed for water, life; the light and all the stuff that's good were already created —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aknot (talk)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. Philip J. Rayment 22:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

YEC Pwnage:

1.light doesn't travel at infinite spped. nothing does. it travels at 300.000km/second

2.We are f**king far away from stars ( =light source)

3.light-year = the quantity of distance the light can travel in a year.

4. most of the things we see are a lot farther away than 6000 light-years (i.e.: whirlpol galaxy = 23 millions of light-years away, NGC 1300 = 69 millions light-years away)

5. 1 light year = 9,460,730,472,580.8 kilometers, 5,879,000,000,000 miles

6.the distance from the whirlpool galaxy to here is 274.361.183.704.843.200.000 kilometers (no joke)

7.The light would need 29 million years at 300.000 kilometers per second, (186.000 miles per second) to arrive at the earth.

8.according to you, the earth was created before the stars, and it has 6000 years, in 6000 years, the light from the whirlpool galaxy still would need to travel 274.361.183.704.843.194.000 more kilometers (a crapload of time and space) to reach our ol' good ball of mud (earth <_<), and thus, we couldn't see it because the LIGHT ITSELF is far away w00t!

9.we can actually see the Wirhlpool galaxy Image taken from the Hubble space telescope

10.wiki article on speed of light

11.pwned

Aknot 17:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Aknot, how about before you post in such a smug way, you actually try learning a bit about the idea that you so readily dismiss? It's not good form to reject something on supposedly reasonable grounds when you have so little understanding of the thing that you are rejecting. For an answer to your objection, please read this. Then even if you still don't agree, please come back and apologise for being so dismissive. Philip J. Rayment 23:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Philip, how about actually understanding the matieral in the link you give before citing it? It talks about two possibilities (c-decay and time dilation) as solutions to the age problem for YECs. C-decay has never been observed, so that's not a solution. Time dilation is only significant near a massive amount of matter (like in the vicinity of a star) -- that's definitely not the case for light traveling through empty space.--Mackronking2 00:37, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

What makes you think that I don't understand it? Maybe you should read it properly. It talks about three possibilities, and doesn't accept the first two (including c-decay). Not being observed, however, should not be an issue; lots of things in cosmology have never been observed. Humphrey's proposal has a massive amount of gravity; a small universe centred on the vicinity of Earth. Philip J. Rayment 07:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, if you understand it, then it should be simple to resolve our argument. Simply integrate the time dt using GR equations as a light ray travels from a distant galaxy (say, z=5) to Earth (z=0). If you're right, then the total time should be less than 6000 years. If I'm right, then the total time should be on the order of 10s of billions of years. It'll all come down to two simple numbers. I will do the same if you like. I await your (numerical) response.--Mackronking2 08:20, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I understand the concept, not the maths, unfortunately. But even so I can question yours. 10s of billions of years is what the Big Bang theory would give, which assumes an unbounded universe. But Humphrey's idea is for a bounded universe, and an initially-small one. Even without doing the maths it's clear that the time would not be 10s of billions of years. Philip J. Rayment 09:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

That doesn't make sense. Time dilation is a local effect. It depends on the gravity at the point in space that the light is propagating at. It has nothing to do with a bounded or unbounded universe, only the amount of gravity along the light propagation line. Again, simple integrating the GR equations along such a path should give the answer. Why doesn't Humphrey just do the math? The math is done in many GR textbooks and the answer is on the order of billions of years.--Mackronking2 09:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

You clearly do not understand white hole cosmology. We're not talking about time dilation in the present space-time continuum. We're talking about conditions as they existed during the initial explosion of matter from that now-closed white hole. The matter was so densely packed that the entire space-time continuum was fundamentally different. It did not have the three dimensions of space and one of time that it has today. Instead it has four dimensions of space and none of time. We're not talking about time retardation. We're talking about complete and absolute stasis of time. Indeed, time qua time did not exist during that event.

And then, as the matter began to thin out at the edges, a conventional space-time continuum came to be. Time began to flow at the edges--but not near the center. So that--by our own clocks--the universe beyond our galaxy simply endured accelerated aging. And on Day Four of creation, the stars appeared for the first time--and set in recognizable patterns so that they could reliably give us seasons. By this model, many of those stars had existed (though most of them existed in our galaxy and are therefore much younger than are the quasars and so on in the far beyond), and the light from them would reach us shortly after time qua time came to be on earth.

Many other arguments remain to show that this galaxy is certainly much younger than the geologists insist. They are beyond the scope of an article on the "Jurassic period." But they strongly militate against conventional geologic understanding. --TerryH^Talk 09:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The article I linked to was written at layman's level. What makes you think that Russell Humphreys hasn't done the maths? See his book, Starlight and Time, and/or search for some of his published papers, such as in the Journal of Creation.

Bounded vs. unbounded is significant because an unbounded universe has gravity the same in all directions (local effects excepted) because there is no centre, whereas a bounded universe has the centre of gravity at the centre of the universe (assuming a roughly even spread of matter).

Philip J. Rayment 10:43, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

That article oly quotes Dr. humprey (who i Dr. humprey?), why it didn't quoted different sources; like stephen hawkings?

Stars never existed? why would God create something useless? that would not be good, in fact, it would be cruelty, humanity has always seen stars millions of light years away and asked if there was something there and spent billions and a lot on effort on that. Also, if light was created on-the-run, why it would still to shine? <- i like this tehory XD it has comedical value

white holes are doubtful, it violates laws of entropy. (second one) and if it was reduced to nothin, then why it was touching earth? (altough is a lot more convincing than the first), and if it was a hole THAT massive to reduce time THAT much in earth, it would alo have affected stars at milions of light years away in it's "shelter" of time, right? back to the original question

The only solid plot-hole is that earth was not created IN the big bang; even 300.000 years later, all there was was a bunch of hydrogen atoms, even if it was in a distorted time, the atoms in areas were time is shorter would need to form planets and stars, right, and the stars would need to explode in supernovas to make the heavier elements (needed for earth and humans), and to make the gas clouds (nebula) collapse and create more stars, wich would atrcact matter; and after a VERY long explanation, create earth! :D

I was almost convinced.

And why i need to apologize? i never insulted you or YEC (to "pwn" it is not an insult) and censored all swearing (wich wasn't offensive to anyone) Aknot 13:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It quoted Humphreys and not Hawking because it was Humphreys, not Hawking, who came up with the theory.

I didn't ask you to apologise for insulting me or YEC, but for your dismissive tone, given that YECs have answers for these things which you haven't even bothered to find out before you dismissed the idea.

Most of the rest of your post was barely intelligible.

Philip J. Rayment 07:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so if you didn't understood something as simple as that post, then i doubt you understood YOUR post (BTW, thnx mackroking, you saved me the maths ;) ) and, DO YOU BELIEVE IN BIG BANG OR NOT!?, your first 3 posts denied BB, and then, you post a link at something that clearly defends BB theory, and did the time suspension lasted 4.404 billion years??? wtf was that white hole? a hole that big would have vaporized in that time, and would have left a CLEAR distance between those who were INSIDE the time suspension and those who weren't.

And i wonder, if there was a total time stopping, how the hell earth was created? and if we were OUTSIDE the time pause, then how can we see other stars?? damn, humprey (or the guy who wrote that article)definitively doesn't know how to explain (he's like bohr), at least i UNDERSTAND hawking oh, and i said hawking because i would want to know what other physcicist think of thatAknot 12:16, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I do not believe in the Big Bang, and the linked item does not defend the Big Bang, even if there are superficial similarities. How was Earth created? By God. Philip J. Rayment 09:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Whether you believe in it is irrelevant. Numerical predictions from the Big Bang agree with the Hubble relationship between velocity and distance for galaxies, with the pattern of temperature anistropities of the cosmic microwave backround, and the primordial element abdundances. Show me another theory that gives the same level of numerical prediction as compared to reality. Whatever theory you profess instead better be able to account for at least these observations in order for it to be valid description of reality. --Mackronking2 10:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Whether or not I believe the Big Bang is TOTALLY relevant—to Aknot's question of whether or not I believe in the Big Bang!

The Big Bang theory is not the unassailable theory that you make it out to be. See here for some reasons, and if you want further reading, see here.

Philip J. Rayment 10:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Philip, I never said the Big Bang theory was unassailable. I'm willing to believe in any theory that does the better job in explaining reality. To me, that means giving numerical predicitions for such things as the temperature anisotropities of the cosmic microwave background and the primoridal Li/H elemntal abundances. If you think there is a better theory, then just quote the Li/H ratio predicted by that theory and compare it to observations of the Li/H ratios in stellar atmospheres. There's no point in arguing with words; just let the numerical predictions confirm which theory is the best description of reality.--Mackronking2 11:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

How do you suggest that I predict the Li/H ratio of "He also made the stars" (Genesis 1:16)? Clearly, God could make the ratio exactly as it is now, so the prediction would be 100% spot on. But that's not the real issue, is it? The real question is whether or not you are willing to admit God creating them as a possibility. Philip J. Rayment 11:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I couldn't have said it better myself. Your theory can't even predict the Li/H observed ratio. So on the one hand, we have a theory (Big Bang) that predicts the observed Li/H abundance ratio measured in stellar atmospheres. On the other hand, we have a theory (God did it) that makes no prediction whatsoever of the observed Li/H ratio observed in reality. Which comes closer to describing reality? The theory that makes a predicition that agrees with observations, or the theory that makes no predicition and can't explain the observations? That's a rhetorical question, since I think anyone reading this will understand my point.--Mackronking2 11:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

You've twisted what I said. I didn't say that the creationist view cannot explain the observations, nor that your view better describes reality. The question is how that ratio came to be (history), not what it is (observation). Both ideas agree on the observations, and both can explain the origin of the ratio. The only difference may be that the creationary view might not (I didn't say "cannot") be able to "predict" the ratio from other information. Philip J. Rayment 02:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Your theory (God did it) cannot explain the origin of the observation. It's a tautology. It says the Li/H ratio is what it is because that's what it is. There is no predicition to your theory. It cannot be tested. It cannot be confirmed. It does not lead to any understanding. You can quote your theory for any observation in life and it doesn't bring you any closer to understanding reality. It's like saying "the craters on the Moon have the numbers and positions that they do because God made the Moon that way". No. They have the numbers and positions that they do because that was the particular history of meteorite impacts over time that gave rise to that pattern of impacts. One could therefore learn about the history of meteorites in the inner solar system by studying the pattern and coming up with a falsifible theory that explains it. Maybe the theory works. Maybe it doesn't and you need a better one. But at least it's an atempt to explain without evoking supernatural forces or magical "puff, they exist" explanations. Why is no "puff, they exist" explanation needed to exaplain a rainbow? We can predict the angular size of a rainbow based on the refraction properties of a water drop. You can predict it on paper and compare it to reality. That gives you an actual understanding of the phenomenon if your predicition agrees with reality. Just saying "God did it" doesn't give you any understanding. --Mackronking2 04:07, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

OWNED Aknot 16:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

AKnot, thanks for reminding me that I hadn't replied to Mackronking2.

Claiming that God did it is an explanation of the origin of the observation. It it not a tautology, because I'm not saying that it is because that's what it is, but because that's what God created it to be. (And in any case, being a tautology doesn't actually make it wrong.)

True, it cannot be tested, but then the same applies for much of origins science.

Creationists only quote "God did it" when God said that He did it; and that's really only for starting things off; not for "any observation in life". Understanding that God did it, however, does bring us closer to understanding reality, if that is indeed reality (which I believe it is, of course). I would agree with you about how the craters on the moon formed, but all you've done is offer an alternative explanation; it doesn't actually refute the idea that God made them that way.

Your comment that "at least it's an atempt to explain without evoking supernatural forces" gives it away: It's not that the "God did it" explanation is wrong. Rather, you want to explain things without God. That's not science, that's a worldview.

As for the rainbow, see my comment above about what God tells us He did.

Philip J. Rayment 01:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Philip, if your God theory is correct, then please use it explain to me how meteor crater can to exist in the Arizona desert. --Mackronking2 01:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

My point Philip is this. Why do you suggest that the existence (size, shape, composition, etc) of Meteor Crater (or the gazillions of craters on the Moon) have a natural explanation, but the existence of Lithium in stellar atmospheres have a supernatural explanation?--Mackronking2 01:59, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

And you big bang believers how do you believe the universe was created? --Tim (CPAdmin1)^talk 01:30, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

"My" "God theory" says that God created the universe and everything (then) in it during those first six days, and that the "everything" includes things like the laws of physics. After that, with few exceptions, things have proceeded according to those laws of physics that God created. The meteor craters would not have been part of God's original creation, so would have been formed much as you would explain it, except for the bit about when it happened. Incidentally, describing a depression in the Arizona desert as a "meteor crater" includes an implied explanation what caused said depression. I agree with the explanation, but you need to learn to distinguish between the facts and the explanations of the facts. Philip J. Rayment 02:04, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Responding to your further post, even though my previous comments above were not in answer to that, they probably do go some way towards answering it. I wouldn't rule out Lithium having a natural explanation, if that were compatible with the overall supernatural beginning. Philip J. Rayment 02:07, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Young earth creationist view

This section is worthless.

See my comments regarding it in Talk:Paleocene which apply equally here, as it is the same section which has just been cut and pasted onto every geological time period article. --Jeremiah4-22 15:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Young earth creationists believe that...

Young earth creationists believe that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error and do not believe in the Jurassic period.

I would like to suggest removing "evolutionary" from the sentence. As mentioned above the age of the earth being very old was put forward before evolution came on the scientific scene. The geological time scale does not imply evolution. It is possible to read about the Geologic Time Scale without seeing the word evolution except in citations (of the two citations that have 'evolution' in the title, only one is about biology). --Mtur 15:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Secular Dating IS a Fact, Philip

Until you solve the starlight problem, secular dating is a fact. Get back to me with that. Until then, I have reverted your undo of my changes.-AmesG_yo! 11:09, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

1. Secular dating is not a fact.
2. Starlight has nothing to do with this article.
3. The burden of proof is not on creationism in this case as the creationist view is not being claimed as fact, unlike the secular view in your changes.
4. Revert it again and I will block you (and you will be the first block I've done to someone who is not a vandal).

See also my comments above about my opinion on this article.

Philip J. Rayment 11:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Starlight has a lot to do with the issue; it proves the old age of the universe, and thus disproves the entire young earth creationist dating schema. If you choose to ignore this falsifying evidence, you prove once & for all that your views are un-scientific. As a rule, remember, in science the burden of proof is on the new theory, and certainly on the theory making the most outrageous claims. YEC-"theory" is both; thus the burden is on you. Your threat is noted: per your warning I did not undo any changes, but added a sentence & citation.-AmesG_yo! 11:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Starlight has as much to do with the Jurassic as the entire creation/evolution/uniformitarian argument has to do with it. Yes, it is not totally unrelated, but it is not something specific to this article. I am only ignoring the starlight issue as far as this article is concerned. I do not ignore is otherwise, but I disagree that it is falsifying evidence. If the burden of proof is on the "new" theory, then the burden of proof should have been on the old-Earth theory when James Hutton simply pronounced that uniformitarianism was the way to go. Personally, I think that it is the uniformitarians who are making the outrageous claims, so that comment doesn't carry much weight either. I don't fully agree with your edit, but certainly it was not what I warned you against.

By the way, my previous post here was written in a hurry. I should have explained that blocking you for would have been for edit warring or for disobeying a direction of an administrator, not for posting an ideological view.

You haven't commented on my alternative version of this article (see further up this page). I still hope to have my version reinstated, and now have an additional argument to do so (not anything discussed here).

Philip J. Rayment 21:20, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Your version is so much better! Wow. Why don't you put it back up? I'll support you for what it's worth. It's a fair treatment of the issue, giving the "equal time" that CP demands. I'll discuss the starlight claim later, but I hope you put it back.-AmesG_yo! 21:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Phil, I'm tired of fighting Conservative on this. You should revert to your version.-AmesG_yo! 21:55, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Could we get this article to actually say something?

There is far too much pointless quibbling going on, about the phrasing within the sections which we do not agree with ("It is claimed", "According to", "supposedly", etc), which is getting us nowhere with this (and similar articles),

It would surely be more constructive to write the individual sections of the article, as clear and uninterrupted statements of the believed facts according to that viewpoint, and clearly titling the sections "Young Earth Creationist viewpoint", "Scientific viewpoint" (and any other viewpoints that people may wish to put forward). --Jeremiah4-22 12:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Reinstatement 28th April 2007

Just for the sake of properly documenting matters, my reinstatement of my earlier version of this article follows extensive discussion on my talk page, here. — Philip J. Rayment 09:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Merge?

I think we should merge all of the secular time periods into one article, they all give alot of the same info and it would make more sense to have them in one article. Secular geological timescale maybe? --CPAdmin1 22:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

That would make for a very large article and Conservapedia has a goal of keeping the articles smaller. I think it will be okay with separate articles.

It already links to Geologic system, which was intended to be a neutral name for what you are calling Secular geological timescale. Have you looked at Geologic system?

There should be a table showing the geologic system components such as Jurassic, even with the secular dates, but I was wondering if that should be in its own article (i.e just the table and an introduction) to avoid making Geologic system too large. Philip J. Rayment 23:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Does one need to put 'secular' in front of each word that doesn't match the YEC interpretation? Could we get Secular theory of evolution? Putting secular in front of it makes it harder to find and adds nothing of value to it. One would assume that geologic timescale would be just as reasonable of a name. --Mtur 22:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

As I've just said above, in this case I don't see the need, but otherwise, yes, one does often need to put "secular" (or some equivalent), because not all geology (etc.) is done from a secular point of view. But in saying that, I'm referring to the text of articles; hopefully with article titles we can avoid that with neutral terms, such as I did with Geologic system. Philip J. Rayment 23:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I think that that 1 article would not be too long, and it would eliminate the need for

"The Jurassic is preceded by Permian era and followed by the Cretaceous era."

And the like. --CPAdmin1 23:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Each geological time period article, if it is to give an informative account of the scientific positions, will need to be substantially larger than the current article. As well as the beginning/end times, the preceding/following periods, where the name came from etc, each will need to have sections (each probably several paragraphs long) on the positions and movement of major landmasses during the period; the climate during the period, the dominant faunistic and floral groups, giving several specific examples; the main regions in which strata of the period are found, and the means by which they are recognised; plus discussion of the events responsible for starting and ending the period. And probably some other things too.

Many of these things will need to be explicitly compared to those of preceding/following periods as well.

Quite probably the creationist positions will need to be grown correspondingly to address each point raised too. There are about a dozen periods to deal with too, so I can't see any way that this can all be fitted into a single sensibly-sized article. --Jeremiah4-22 11:28, 6 May 2007 (EDT)