Talk:Age of the Earth
the first sentence and its citations are almost exactly like the TOW article. But honestly, it's a single sentence, and how many other ways of saying it are there? As for the references, I see no problem with using wikipedia as a means to finding decent sauce--"Shut up, Brx." 01:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Uh, Evidence against a recent creation. ![]()
01:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- There was a debate as to whether or not there should be a specific article about the age of the earth, so I (brxbrx, at his campus library) made one. Various other editors provided feedback and made their adjustments to the article, and no one has issued a complaint up until today ↑ --"Shut up, Brx." 01:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a reason for this crap article? don't we have the EXACT same things on our "earth" article.--
GodotThe Peyote God awaits 01:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you fucking kidding me? Hey, look what I found in the saloon bar archives! The article is here and was created to provide a clear statement regarding the Earth's age here on RationalWiki distinct from the mire of articles on creationism. It is linked to in some of these articles and links to some of these articles. It is fine where it is and as the principle author I don't appreciate this sudden deletionism, especially after it's been around for a healthy length of time.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Jesus, kid. That's an awfully strong defense of an article that's woefully incomplete. I don't think anyone's opposed in principle to a separate article for the age of the earth, although I don't know why we wouldn't just interwiki link to the far superior Wikipedia article, but if we're going to have one it at least needs to expand on the material that's already in Evidence against a recent creation. As it is, your 7 sentence article provides no explanation at all of the methods of dating the earth and how and why they agree. There's a single reference to radiometric dating of "star stuff," but it's insufficient to give the reader any insight without requiring him to go to a completely different page, where he also won't learn anything about the specific methods used to date the age of the earth. At the very least the article needs to give a basic explanation of what radiometric dating is, the assumptions that underlie it, why they're reliable, and how it works so that it can then offer a meaningful explanation of how the method is applied to the various materials that provide us with reliable dates. The "star stuff" reference is to ... the article doesn't say. The likely answer is the Diablo Canyon meteorite, but even that's not the only material used. No mention of Australian zircons, lead/uranium ratios in ancient ores, or moon rocks. As for other methods, there's no mention of helioseismological agreement with radiometric dates. No mention of the assumptions that underlie radiometric dating and why they're well-supported - just a throw away mention of how physics and geology would "go under a radical upheaval" if ... the article doesn't say. It's like you didn't even look at the sources you cited, one of which is just an abstract, btw, or our Evidence against a recent creation. If you want this article then finish it. I will if you want me to.

19:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- You do realize we've an article on radiometric dating, and that it's linked to in this article, right?--"Shut up, Brx." 14:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- You've failed to response to a single point I made and instead continue revert warring over your shitty article being linked included in the Ussher article, going so far as to accuse be of being a bitter troll or not knowing how a wiki works. Quite to the contrary, you've exhibited a remarkable disinterest in cooperating, yet you've admitted that your article is lacking in some of the regards I mentioned. It is you who are openly trolling here as well as exhibiting a fundamental misunderstanding of the collaborative process, which seems par for the course for someone who's primary response to seeing edits he doesn't like is to revert without the least discussion. I'm deleting your piece of shit stub unless you expand it to do more than make bald assertions and whack ass unsupportable "snark" that just makes you look like an asshole. When I do, I'll collaborate with someone who can actually write and add material as a subsection of the earth article.

14:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- You've failed to response to a single point I made and instead continue revert warring over your shitty article being linked included in the Ussher article, going so far as to accuse be of being a bitter troll or not knowing how a wiki works. Quite to the contrary, you've exhibited a remarkable disinterest in cooperating, yet you've admitted that your article is lacking in some of the regards I mentioned. It is you who are openly trolling here as well as exhibiting a fundamental misunderstanding of the collaborative process, which seems par for the course for someone who's primary response to seeing edits he doesn't like is to revert without the least discussion. I'm deleting your piece of shit stub unless you expand it to do more than make bald assertions and whack ass unsupportable "snark" that just makes you look like an asshole. When I do, I'll collaborate with someone who can actually write and add material as a subsection of the earth article.
- You do realize we've an article on radiometric dating, and that it's linked to in this article, right?--"Shut up, Brx." 14:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Jesus, kid. That's an awfully strong defense of an article that's woefully incomplete. I don't think anyone's opposed in principle to a separate article for the age of the earth, although I don't know why we wouldn't just interwiki link to the far superior Wikipedia article, but if we're going to have one it at least needs to expand on the material that's already in Evidence against a recent creation. As it is, your 7 sentence article provides no explanation at all of the methods of dating the earth and how and why they agree. There's a single reference to radiometric dating of "star stuff," but it's insufficient to give the reader any insight without requiring him to go to a completely different page, where he also won't learn anything about the specific methods used to date the age of the earth. At the very least the article needs to give a basic explanation of what radiometric dating is, the assumptions that underlie it, why they're reliable, and how it works so that it can then offer a meaningful explanation of how the method is applied to the various materials that provide us with reliable dates. The "star stuff" reference is to ... the article doesn't say. The likely answer is the Diablo Canyon meteorite, but even that's not the only material used. No mention of Australian zircons, lead/uranium ratios in ancient ores, or moon rocks. As for other methods, there's no mention of helioseismological agreement with radiometric dates. No mention of the assumptions that underlie radiometric dating and why they're well-supported - just a throw away mention of how physics and geology would "go under a radical upheaval" if ... the article doesn't say. It's like you didn't even look at the sources you cited, one of which is just an abstract, btw, or our Evidence against a recent creation. If you want this article then finish it. I will if you want me to.
- Are you fucking kidding me? Hey, look what I found in the saloon bar archives! The article is here and was created to provide a clear statement regarding the Earth's age here on RationalWiki distinct from the mire of articles on creationism. It is linked to in some of these articles and links to some of these articles. It is fine where it is and as the principle author I don't appreciate this sudden deletionism, especially after it's been around for a healthy length of time.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a reason for this crap article? don't we have the EXACT same things on our "earth" article.--
[edit] Delete tag
Is this thing going anywhere, or is it best as a subsection of an already-existing article? B♭maj7 (talk) Apple acknowledged that 137 workers at a Chinese factory near the city of Suzhou had been seriously injured by a toxic chemical used in making the slick green screens of the iPhone 18:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's just not very good but since he wants it so much give him a chance to flesh it out.

19:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- As long as it's given a time frame or moved to user space. Otherwise, it will just sit here forever.
GodotThe Peyote God awaits 19:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. Godot wants it moved to user space. Anyhow, I'll work on it as soon as I get my desktop back online. That'll be whenever my brother finishes downloading and burning my new Vista boot disc image. Probably next week.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- "probably next week" - That's why i want it moved to user space. The little rant you had about me leaving something undone was a 30 minute long break, cause i had something come up on expected. leaving crap "to be done later" likely means it never will get done. That's my concern about "i'll get back to it" that you seem to imply.
GodotThe Peyote God awaits 20:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- "probably next week" - That's why i want it moved to user space. The little rant you had about me leaving something undone was a 30 minute long break, cause i had something come up on expected. leaving crap "to be done later" likely means it never will get done. That's my concern about "i'll get back to it" that you seem to imply.
- Wow. Godot wants it moved to user space. Anyhow, I'll work on it as soon as I get my desktop back online. That'll be whenever my brother finishes downloading and burning my new Vista boot disc image. Probably next week.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- As long as it's given a time frame or moved to user space. Otherwise, it will just sit here forever.
Moved, for now. B♭maj7 (talk) "And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know. Do you know?" 20:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Next time, please use page move, so I can keep revisions. Also, weren't you the first one to start bitching that one time I moved an unfinished article to userspace?--"Shut up, Brx." 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- This one is particularly crappy and useless. That one had potential. also, you can do no right by me, no matter what. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 22:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- If we were to delete all "particularly crappy and useless" stubs, we would get rid of at least a third of our mainspace articles.
Liquid Blue 22:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- And that's necessarily a bad thing because? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 22:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Because it means RW is wasting its resources. The cycle here is that people write something and once the writers are not looking other people agree it's shit and delete it. --Mack Coster (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) Just sayin'. You apparently like singling out Bricks even when he tries to do something helpful (misguided as it is), so I'll keep mum.
Liquid Blue 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Trying is fine. Doing is better. I made some substantive criticisms that he ignored. Instead he's acting like a bigger baby than usual. The "article" is 5 sentences of slapdash shit that would him flunked out of high school English. He should rewrite the thing to actually describe the issue instead of being mere snark without substance or watch it get deleted in favor of good material being added to the Planet Earth article. What's difficult about this?

23:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's a good thing we only hold Bricks to such high standards, otherwise RW would have about a dozen articles. And why don't you improve the article instead of bitching about it? Oh, I know, you can't do that, the only thing you can do is make badly photoshopped images of cocks. -- Nx / talk 06:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Trying is fine. Doing is better. I made some substantive criticisms that he ignored. Instead he's acting like a bigger baby than usual. The "article" is 5 sentences of slapdash shit that would him flunked out of high school English. He should rewrite the thing to actually describe the issue instead of being mere snark without substance or watch it get deleted in favor of good material being added to the Planet Earth article. What's difficult about this?
- And that's necessarily a bad thing because? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 22:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- If we were to delete all "particularly crappy and useless" stubs, we would get rid of at least a third of our mainspace articles.
- This one is particularly crappy and useless. That one had potential. also, you can do no right by me, no matter what. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 22:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] My take
I think Brx is right: we need an article with this title. The question of how old the Earth is is central to our mission; hell, that's why they talk about "old earth" and "young earth" creationism. That said, this article is a fuckin' piece of crap and needs some serious work. Let's put the work in and make it worthy of the centrality of the issue to our purpose. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 14:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was ready to work on it but today I look at it and I do not quite understand what the big deal is. I guess I'll put some stuff down about helioseismology, and maybe some sections on YEC and OEC measurements.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- maybe a history of estimates of AotE? the last time I did a history section, though, I got carried away... see the uspolitics WiP on my userpage--"Shut up, Brx." 14:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I thought OEC estimates were 144k... Oh well. I'm going to play battefield now, and I'll come back and do some stuff later. For those of you who are skeptical, I added a bunch of sourced good stuff (according to me at least) to the wiki4CAM myths about homosexuality article [1] err homeopathy. but yeah. I'm totally doing stuff, and I'll come back later and do more stuff--"Shut up, Brx." 14:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think you need to be far more clear about your breakdown of who says what, and why. Also, buddhhis --oops, that should be hinduism--- and zoroastrianism are really fun, as both posit the physical earth to be millions if not billions of years old. If it were me, I would really take some time to clairify how old the earth is scientifically, and why we think that way. --
GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 14:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think you need to be far more clear about your breakdown of who says what, and why. Also, buddhhis --oops, that should be hinduism--- and zoroastrianism are really fun, as both posit the physical earth to be millions if not billions of years old. If it were me, I would really take some time to clairify how old the earth is scientifically, and why we think that way. --
- I thought OEC estimates were 144k... Oh well. I'm going to play battefield now, and I'll come back and do some stuff later. For those of you who are skeptical, I added a bunch of sourced good stuff (according to me at least) to the wiki4CAM myths about homosexuality article [1] err homeopathy. but yeah. I'm totally doing stuff, and I'll come back later and do more stuff--"Shut up, Brx." 14:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- maybe a history of estimates of AotE? the last time I did a history section, though, I got carried away... see the uspolitics WiP on my userpage--"Shut up, Brx." 14:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Keep an Eye on the Hinduism Section
The Hinduism section gives the impression that Hindu cosmology has some sort of relevance to scientific discoveries. It doesn't. Some of the sources seem to be cut whole cloth from the kind of "Hinduism's amazing scientific accuracy" quote collections that parallels similar Christian and Muslim ones. The fact is that several of these Hindu claims are either way too old or, like the Dick Teresi quote that I'm still uncomfortable with, very vague general claims. For instance, depending on where you check, it would appear that the claim Teresi makes for a Hindu chronology for the age of the Earth being 4.3 billion years is actually the Hindu chronology of the universe (though such concepts may be difficult to apply at all, given the problem of comparing Hindu religious terminology to modern scientific ditto). Likewise, a Hindu claim for a round Earth is only "better" than a Greek flat one, if the Hindu claim was based off some sort of observation. That the Hindu claim inadvertently turned out to be closer to the mark is no more than a lucky guess. It also ignores the World Turtle idea which is also found in (some forms of?) Hinduism and which seems to necessitate a flat Earth. This is yet another reason why I'm sceptical about Teresi's accuracy and/or cherry-picking as it sounds far too much like the claims for Biblical scientific foreknowledge. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)