Difference between revisions of "Talk:Young Earth Creationism"

Revision as of 02:34, June 3, 2009

!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

15. Too few Supernovas

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. Learn together 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. Conservative 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Glad I could help. ;-) Learn together 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Dates

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. JazzMan 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT)  :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. Conservative 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. Philip J. Rayment 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Links

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Longitude (talk)

An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Craters

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula? MetcalfeM

What's the "issue"? Philip J. Rayment 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth? MetcalfeM

That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([1] see under "Signs of desperation").

If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.

Philip J. Rayment 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after? MetcalfeM

Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm suggesting (not claiming) that most of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here? http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm MetcalfeM

Yes, I've looked at the site before. Philip J. Rayment 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site? MetcalfeM

I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. Philip J. Rayment 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery. Metcalfe

First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.

Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a possible explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a possible explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find very often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.

Philip J. Rayment 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here? That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination. And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find very often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies. MetcalfeM

Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better in a few cases, but overall, I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.

I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever observed how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, according to your views, is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.

Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are part of the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by the majority of the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this without forming a conspiracy to do so. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.

Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists are based on the evolutionary view being true and are therefore in error.

Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.

But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting evolutionary dates for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.

Philip J. Rayment 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

YEC is not all of Creationism

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xenuite (talk)

You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that many people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.

Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.

Philip J. Rayment 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. Everwill 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Error in age

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foxtrotuniform (talk)

I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 million", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. Philip J. Rayment 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Google

6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeanluc (talk)

Overreaction...?

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --_transResident Transfan^form! 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

races

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also. AdenJ 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

See here. Philip J. Rayment 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

The real question is if all humans are decsended from only Adam and Eve, and all mutations are just a negative distruction of DNA and are the breaking down/ destruction of the perfection ( good and very good)created by god, why are there more than 4 allels at a given loci in the human genome? More than 4 positive phenotypes exist for many traits, some must be contigent on a single gene (not combinations of genes). From where did this genetic diversity arrive? - on a side note last I heard "race" is not a very scientific term, as no given gene or combination of genes can define a race.As in there is not a single trait you can define a race by. Ex. not ALL negroid people have very dark skin, some actually very light (I'm trying really hard not to sound racist here. We can all agree any discussion of race is a touchy subject, best avoided...And thankfully science says races probabaly don't even exist) -Damien Rivers

Not all mutations destroy information. Many are neutral. That is, they can change genes to a different form that has no new function. Further, there may be some genes that are designed to vary, such as genes that control the production of antibodies. They wouldn't change so that they do something different than that, but they may change so that they can recognise different infections.

As far as races are concerned, you are quite correct. Did you actually read the link?

Philip J. Rayment 17:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

As for neutral mutations, of course they exist . Neutral mutations include silent mutations where the DNA sequence is changed but the amino acid sequence remains unaltered. Equivelent mutations, where the DNA sequence changes and the amino acid sequence changes as well, where the functional domains and the protein folding remains intact- allowing normal functioning of the protein ( ie. the changed protien conserves size, charge etc. of the amino acid substituted). However this is not what I was refering to. I was asking how creation science accounts for populations with more than four different DNA sequences at a sigle genetic loci, which result in more than four different amino acid sequences. I was specifically refering to cases where these protiens result in different, but positive phenotypes. The maximum number of these different phenotypes (coded from a single gene like discribed above) should not exceed 4 if the entire population descended from two diploid parents (as would be the case for animals from Noahs ark). This is of course only if you assume no mutations result in new positive allels(ie mutations that alter proteins to have a new positive function). -Damien

I think that we are talking about "neutral" and "positive" in different ways, and that is my fault for not being clear what I was referring to. I was using the term in the sense of genetic information. So when I said that many mutations are neutral, I was meaning that they neither destroy nor create information. Think of a cake recipe. The recipe contains information on how to make a cake, including a list of ingredients and instructions on how to put them together. Now suppose that someone wants a copy of your cake recipe, so you type out a new copy for them. But in making this copy, you accidentally change some of the information. There are various changes that could hypothetically occur. Let's just pretend that one of these changes adds information on how to ice the case (your recipe didn't include icing). This would be an information-gaining change (mutation). Of course this could never occur accidentally, yet this is what evolution proposes. Alternatively, let's suppose that you accidentally skipped a bit of the recipe, and left something out. This is a very real possibility, and is what we actually observe in living things: mutations destroying information.

But there are a couple of other possible changes/mutations. Perhaps where the recipe called for 2.5 cups of water, you typed it as 2.8 cups. In this case, the change is not neutral the way you used the term (it is a real change), but there is no new information, nor a loss of information. It's merely changed information. It may even be a beneficial one if the original recipe was a bit dry. The remaining possibility is that the recipe calls for cherry flavouring, and you mistype that as sherry flavouring. So it's not a quantity that has changed in in this case, but a different ingredient. But it's only going to change the flavour; it's not new information like adding the instructions for icing is.

So your allele change is more like one of the last two. It's not new information, just a change in information, so is neutral as far as information gain or loss is concerned.

And to forestall what the next question might be, if your mistyped "flour" as "sherry", this is are more substantial change, but the result is that you no longer have a cake, just a mess instead. In this case you have actually destroyed the cake recipe, so this counts as a loss of information.

Philip J. Rayment 22:34, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Before I comment further, I would like to clarify then. Is it correct to assume nobody disputes that there can be changes to protiens where an "old" protein takes on a new function? (ex.1 a kinase protien mutates and gains the ability to phosphorylate a different type of sugar, or gains the ability to also dephosphorylate the sugar as well)(ex.2 only protiens that give rise to thick coarse hair and thin hair exist. Now the DNA that gives rise to thick hair is mutated to give rise to curly hair.. now all three can be found in the population)-- clearly 2 is a hypothetical ( I know nothing about human genetics for all I know these types Of traits are controlled by 12 genes)It's just an example trying to illustrate the type of change I'm referring to.

If these types of changes can occur,Then over time they would accumulate. At some point these simple changes would then cause groups to no longer be able to interbreed, gain the ability to metabolize new food sources, change skin and hair colour, change size etc. Eventually generations later(many many many later) would not resemble what the original parents started out as. I understand that creation science says baramin sometimes can no longer interbreed due to "degeneration of information" or some similar term, but at what point would it no longer be the same type of creature.

I've heard people say that this doesn't happen, but it works at the molecular level (changes like paragraph one of my response), we see it every day in labs. If you accept (again I suppose I don't know that you do) that changes like in paragraph 1 of my response do occur, why would they then not simply accumulate until the offspring of thousands and thousands of years later don't resemble the original generation. At what point are these changes stopped from occuring/ accumulating? by what are they stopped? and at what point is this evolution?

In regards to new information I guess that depends on your definition of "new" as well. gene duplications occur all the time. These then can have their original functions altered ( see example 1 and 2) now the organism in question has 2 genes with two similar functions that are different and useful, and that can be passes on to subsequent generations. This second gene can be altered further or duplicated itself in subsequent generatons,(of course influenced by it's enviroment; it will not change or loose the only copy of something required in a given environment. Eventually the parent protein no longer resembles the desendent from thousands of years later.

Gene timming is also huge using the same protien in different ways. A promoter ( or operator)..or the proteins that interact with the promoter (or operator) can be altered. Now the gene is "ON" at a new time.At the molecular level situations like this are observed in a labs. Using your cake analogy this would be like taking melted chocolate that goes in with flour for flavor, instead on the cake.Not a "new" information exactly but a new use that would be a different product.Timing body plan genes (hox genes???) can create drastically different looking creatures.( duplicating body plan genes also has a large effect I believe?)

If these change accumulate,the creature looks and acts differently in a new niche, wouldn't it be correct to say this is evolution.

We may not have observed enough accumulated changes to be what you would accept as a complete new species , (It is very unlikely that we could have yet, due to time constraints ie. how long we have been observing) however, we have observed many of the molecular mechanisms. They wouldn't just stop working because over time it could/would lead to evolution.

As for where the first genetic information ever came from.. that is origins of life not evolution, and though there are theories, this is much less experimentally sound science at the moment.( not to mention a whole other discussion) -Damien

Whether or not an old protein can take on a new function depends on whether or not that new function is more or less specific. See A-I Milano mutation—evidence for evolution? for an example that I think addresses the sort of situation you are describing.

Gene duplication is not the creation of new information, but the duplication of existing information. Whether or not mutations to the duplicate gene count as new information is a separate question.

Creationists accept that new species can arise. What they dispute is that such involves new information.

Whether or not the origin of life is evolution depends on your definition of evolution.

Philip J. Rayment 23:16, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

mention other creation theories

I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeJonez (talk)

I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. Philip J. Rayment 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Zircon Dating

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:

• Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally).

No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.

(can still be found here)

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --MichaelK 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [2]--MichaelK 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --MichaelK 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! Philip J. Rayment 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --MichaelK 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.

Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.

Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.

1. You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
2. You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
3. You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.

However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are several assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. One of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make that assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the other assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a bit more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.

Furthermore, this article points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.

The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.

Philip J. Rayment 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the Nature article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of c as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --MichaelK 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.

...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...

If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.

I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.

No, you aren't forced to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.

What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. That is pseudoscience.

I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were not closed systems, so something is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.

I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.

As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the Responses to criticisms section).

Philip J. Rayment 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, let's look at the ²⁰⁷Pb/²⁰⁶Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the ²⁰⁷Pb/²⁰⁶Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the Nature article [3], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the ²⁰⁷Pb/²⁰⁶Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --MichaelK 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Here is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--MichaelK 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an open system, where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.

"I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism" (my emphasis).

It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it cannot change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the definition of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!

I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.

Philip J. Rayment 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I used exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

As the Nature article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the Age of the Earth article? That arcticle includes a brief mention of some potassium-argon dating experiment, but it doesn't explain the process at all.

About the speed of light, it could actually double and increase and decrease and we wouldn't observe any change in anything whatsoever. Everything is based on the speed of light- the meter is just directly based on it. You can't really even say that the speed of light is increasing or decreasing unless every other physical constant is somehow held in place while this is happening.

This is actually what I love about physics. There are some things we can be sure of because they are theoretical. The speed of light is DEFINED to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. The speed of light is one of three of the most important constants we use when discussing radiation, the other two being the magnetic constant μ₀, which is measured in kg ms^-2A^-2 and the electric constant and the electric constant ε₀, which is defined in A²s⁴kg^-1m^-3. These three constants rely on each other for the definitions of their units. I've measured c and μ₀ myself, which made measuring ε₀ unnecessary.

Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that while the guy who proposed that the speed of light was once much faster in the past is technically correct (and incorrect at the same time), he doesn't really understand what this means. It would be the same thing as me giving a lecture on quantum mechanics. I don't understand that yet so I have no business acting like I do. --MichaelK 17:54, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

I see the distinction you were making, but "creationism" is largely (although not totally) synonymous with "young Earth creationism" anyway.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with your comment about speed-of-light measurements centuries ago. The fact is that the speed was measured, and although it was not measured with the same precision as today, it was done pretty accurately and without the modern methods.

Regarding the lead leaching in or out, the quote I provided about referred to the uranium and/or thorium leaching in or out. I think your point is that the two isotopes of lead would leach equally, but because they are produced at different rates, there would be different amounts, so they would not likely leach in proportion so that they two isotopes agree. I'm not sure that this is valid; why wouldn't they leach in proportion? But regardless, what if the uranium leached in or out?

I don't see why anyone should acknowledge the "possibility" that the ages are true when there is much good evidence that is consistent with the world being much younger.

Instead of this article or the Age of the Earth article, how about the radiometric dating article?

I think you're way off the beam with the speed of light matter (no pun intended). Light is not defined to be 299,792,458 metres per second, but measured to be that. Certainly, defining the metre in terms of the speed of light confuses that, but it is also measured in feet per second. If the speed of light doubles, and therefore the metre doubles, does the foot double also? And if all that is so, does the distance between the Sun and the Earth double? And would we not notice the sudden lurch? And why bother measuring the speed of light if it is defined to be a particular speed? It's like measuring a one-foot ruler with another one-foot ruler, not to see if the first ruler was accurately made, but to see how long one foot is.

So I disagree that the bloke who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past didn't really understand what that means.

Philip J. Rayment 10:16, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

On October 21, 1983 the meter was defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.[4] --Rutm 14:11, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, if the speed of light were to double then the length of the foot would double. I can tell you that the speed of light had doubled since yesterday and there would be no way for you to prove me right or wrong. If you have access to an extensive library, can you please check out Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Mechanics, Oscillations and Waves, Thermodynamics, by W. H. Freeman, and read the sections on the theory of relativity, and pay attention to the explanition of the speed of light being the same in all frames of reference? I could explain to you how the equations would cancel each other out, and I will if you make me, but it takes a long time to enter in the equations into this wiki markup. Better yet, you should take two semesters of physics at any public university in the United States (preceded by a complete course in calculus). I already explained that everything depends on the speed of light. Can you please analyze the dimensions of the constants I gave you before? The electric and magnetic constants are just to examples. Look at it this way: suppose you're in a building and someone somehow shrinks you along with the building you are in. Well that sounds silly, so I guess I will have to break out the maths. But not tonight. I think I see why the consistancy of the speed of light scares you so much: the fact that an object that is more than 8,000 light years away is observable means that the universe must be older than 8,000 years. Unfortunately, I can't use this as an argument yet because the physics of Hubble shift are currently beyond my understanding, as are the physics of cosmic expansion. So I don't really know how the distances of very far away objects are measured. To be honest, I am not sure that these things are really that far away because I don't understand this, which refutes the common accusation that I have "faith" in science.

The sample taken for measurement was taken form an area of the crystal that was free of cracks. Let me make sure we're both clear on this: the total minimum age of the crystals was determined using ²⁰⁷Pb/²⁰⁶Pb dating. The U/Pb dating I was talking about earlier was from another project published in Nature. You're saying that because the two isotopes of the lead existed in different ratios over time, one isotope may have leached out (meaning more of one isotope left the crystal) at one time.

Even if the lead was somehow leaving the crystals (and there is no evidence that it is), there is no natural process which removes ²⁰⁷Pb at a faster rate than the ²⁰⁶Pb. Even if a lead-removing process started recently, it would still remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged. Also, if the lead-removing process started and ended a long time ago, it would also remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged.--MichaelK 21:01, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what you are saying about the shrinking room, but I have trouble accepting that the sizes of everything will change just because the speed of light changes. That is, I have trouble accepting that the sizes of things are dependent on the speed of light. And the speed of light does change when travelling through different substances (c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum). By the way, I don't plan on taking a course on physics at any university just to have this discussion with you, let alone one on the other side of the world!

As for objects being more than 8,000 light years away, see starlight problem. If I recall correctly, far-away objects are measured by their red-shift, and/or by the apparent brightness of the brightest objects in galaxies.

I think with the dating issue you are getting confused with my response to what I believed you were saying and what I was saying. Let's try this explanation:

Radiometric dating involves measuring the ratio of parent and daughter elements, and calculating from that ratio how long it has been decaying. Uranium decays through a number of steps to eventually become lead, so one way of dating objects is to measure the relative amounts of uranium and lead. However, one of the intermediate elements is thorium, so you can also measure the relative amounts of uranium and thorium. Therefore if the relative amounts of two isotopes of uranium, thorium, and two isotopes of lead are measured, then one should be able to determine the date from three calculations: two from the different uranium-lead ratios and one from the uranium-thorium ratio. You are arguing that because the two uranium-lead figures agree, the date is likely to be accurate. But the link I provided argues that because the thorium figure was zero, this indicates that there is a problem with the sample (perhaps leaching) that makes the uranium-lead date unreliable.

Philip J. Rayment 08:06, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

But what about the ²⁰⁷Pb/²⁰⁶Pb dating? --MichaelK 18:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

It seems that Setterfield's idea has been abandoned even by most Young Earth Creationists. It's discussed earlier in this page. --MichaelK 10:27, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Seriously?

People honestly believe this stuff? This article makes me embarassed to be a conservative. All this article does is make us conservatives look like dunces. I can understand trying to hold on to past beliefs but there has to be a point where you have to admit you were wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psl04001 (talk)

So when are you going to admit that you are wrong? You've not actually pointed out anything wrong in the article. Your comment has nothing of substance. Philip J. Rayment 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

This is where it gets to be most the obvious, the young earth creationists aren't about science at all, they just want to twist on everything to make it look like there is a doubt in the commonly acceptet data, and push their own belifs onto the reader as to if there were any kind evindence tied to it.

The fact is, they read the Bible, then they pretend like they are scientists and say that science is wrong but can't really show the evidence for it. Face it, that just the same way this whole place is built up, no neutriality and only pure oppinions, based on nothing else than their own predeterimined, pre-tought viewpoints --Nabroon 17:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT).

Despite your comments, you've done nothing to substantiate your claims, and are clearly wrong. The fact is that creationary scientists do not pretend like they are scientsts; they actually are scientist. And they don't say that science is wrong, but that evolutionary hypotheses are wrong. And yes, they can show evidence. As for pushing their own beliefs onto people as if there was evidence "tied to it", that is just what evolutionists do. By the way, your "own predetermined, pre-tought(sic) viewpoints" wouldn't be evolutionay ones, would they? Philip J. Rayment 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Like allways, you guys can't change.

You just keep ramble out a load of shit which is supposed make people tired of answering you all the same obvious answers.

Do you have any idea how tiny that percent is which consists of scientists who officially confirm their doubt in the present model we use???

Though..... I shouldn't be a hypocrate, as I don't really belive so much in them myself ;)....

The problem is, scientists can't belive in anything else than what their instruments is showing them, and that's excactly what they are showing, and when you creationist's try to distort the evidence only because of your allready determinded oppinion, based on your belifs, you are in reality denying the details of what god has created.

We both know that there is more between earth and heaven than just the physical, right?

But the thing that destroys every attempt of locating the real truth by combining both science and religion is that religion is based on dogmas, and NOT creativness. No intelligence or indipendence.

Science is about discovering what the world is really made of, but to this day they can only use their intelligence on the created which is of a physical orgin.

But beliving that science and religion can be united in the way the young earth creationists are trying to do it is only shown to continiuly contradicting itself. They don't accept what we have learned because it contradicts with their belifs, then of course it must be false......

A real science of both the physical and the spirutal that co-exists will be able to fit with both ways of thinking without coming into conflict with them, and the young earth creationists obviously isn't there yet.--Nabroon 10:00, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

other belifes

I'ma christian and a creationist i do not want to be put in with these people.

The bible cleary has the age of the earth at around 12,000 ,The universe could be mush older than that if God didint make the earth first since .He could have made other galaxys and star systems etc. before the milky way or solar system.

Reactions to Criticism, Really?

Ok, this section is really bad. Is this really what an encyclopedia entry would look like? A few examples:

"The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See Creation week for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history."

How would anyone know what the authors clearly intended? Maybe say , that this is what YEC supporters believe. But don't state is as fact.

"Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus."

If we want this project to be taken seriously at all,words like "bogus" should probably not be used.

Also in general where did all of this come from? Can anyone verify that these are the most widely used criticism and that those are their responses. KingAdrock 19:12, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Are you simply trying to be difficult, or am I supposed to realise that your intention is to improve this article? If the latter, how am I to tell that if it's not possible for a reader to "know what the author (you in this case) intended"?

Also, you obviously didn't read (or take in) the link to creation week, in which the author's intentions are claimed to be knowable by "professor[s] of Hebrew or Old Testament at .. world-class universit[ies]". So if these experts believe that the intention is discernable (and clearly discernable, given their apparent unanimity), why should we take any notice of your opinion? Furthermore, Barr (like the other experts, for the most part) is not a YEC.

What is wrong with "bogus"? What would you suggest instead?

From decades of personal experience, I can say that these are common criticisms (it doesn't say that they are necessarily "the most widely use criticisms") and that the responses listed are, on the whole, the ones normally given by leading creationists.

Philip J. Rayment 22:10, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

There are definitely problems with the term "bogus". The Reactions to Criticism section states the evolutionist argument against YEC as questionable the poses the YEC rebuttal as indisputable fact. Both views are, in fact, opinion. The word bogus would only properly be used to describe something that has been absolutely proven to be false. - highbrow

"absolutely" proven? How about proven beyond reasonable doubt? And how do you know that it hasn't been proven to be false? The evolutionist arguments are questionable, and I note that you have not disputed any of the YEC rebuttals. Philip J. Rayment 22:34, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Reversion of Rotskep's edits

I've reverted these edits of Rotskep for the following reasons.

• Rotskep may have been trying to insert some arguments for evolution to discredit creation, in which case the argument should be removed because it is incorrect.
• Alternatively, Rotskep was trying to provide an example of the silly arguments that evolutionists sometimes use, in which case it would only serve to confuse the flow of the text in having two different arguments in the one point, and refutations would need to be provided for both.

Philip J. Rayment 20:41, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Are you assuming A Priory that all arguments for Evolution are incorrect? --Brendanw 09:20, 16 November 2008 (EST)

No. Philip J. Rayment 10:01, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Mutually exclusive

Claim one is essentially evolutionists cannot gather enough solid testable evidence to point us in one direction or another as to what happened long before we started observing, this is because it is impossible to

Claim two is essentially The evidence we have gathered (it is implied atthis point that evidence means testable reliable, not guesses) points us in the direction of a young earth that started 6-10,000 years ago

That's akin to stopping someone who is reading a sign that is a long ways away and saying "No you can't know that, no one can see that far, but here let me also show you by reading the sign and telling you what it really says" If someone said that to you you would point out that the two arguments for why you are wrong are mutually exclusive. --Brendanw 09:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I agree with your description of claim 2, and of your analysis on the basis of your descriptions, but don't agree that your description of claim 1 is correct. Claim 1 is more along the lines of saying that neither evolution nor creation can be scientifically "proved", as both involve untestable assumptions. Claim 2 says that you can, however, still see which view the evidence is more consistent with.

To give an example, we observe that everything that we see begin to exist has a cause. So does that prove that the universe had a cause? No, partly because science can never actually prove anything, or, more specifically, just because everything that we see begin has a cause, doesn't mean that everything that begins has a cause. We are free to speculate that the universe popped into existence out of nothing for no reason (as many Big Bangers do). Creationists, however, argue that the universe was created by God.

So, ...

• The creationists believe, on the basis of their theistic worldview that the universe was created by God.
• The secularists believe, on the basis of their atheistic worldview, that the universe had no cause.

Neither is scientifically testable. However, it is the creationists' view that is more consistent with the evidence that observations show things that begin having a cause.

Philip J. Rayment 10:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I would like to make a new section

I would like to make a section about the main stream scientific criticism of YEC. I figured I should ask for permission rather than spend my time typing up something up and having it reverted. --Brendanw 17:34, 15 January 2009 (EST)

The article already lists criticisms, and the responses to them. If there are more that can go in this list (even if you don't know the responses), then I have no objection.

As for "main stream scientific criticism", is there any? I've seen critics claim that creationism is simply not an issue in science, and therefore scientists don't bother criticising it (as scientists; they may criticise it as atheists, for example, though).

It's not clear from your comment whether you are talking about a single criticism or a list of criticisms. If the latter, perhaps you could start with just one, so that you don't risk wasting too much time?

Philip J. Rayment 18:28, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Starlight and the Age of the Universe section

I propose removing most of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section, leaving only a brief summary, as it is duplicated in the Starlight problem article. Any objections? Philip J. Rayment 05:41, 21 February 2009 (EST)