RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3500Goal: $3500

Talk:Deep time

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

We've been needing this one for a long time. Might want to see Gould's "Times arrow.."--PalMD-yada yada 14:08, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Light from faraway stars[edit]

Apologies if I'm being dense, but how does the presence of light from faraway stars serve as evidence that the Earth is old? I can see how it shows that the Universe is old, but not necessarily the Earth itself.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

A fair point but it sort of misses the point: If the universe popped into existence and has been expanding ever since (big bang) and the light from stars many millions of light-years away is just now getting "here", then the model being used is the model for how the earth came to be. If one supposes that, yes, light from millions of light-years away is getting here only now, it requires a paradigm shift in thought (geez I'll say it, doublethink) to further suppose the Earth was only here for oh, say 100,000 years. 10:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
I have to agree. The entry says "... Earth is millions or billions of years old," not Universe. This makes the light thing meaningless. (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The age of the universe gives an upper limit to the age of the Earth, so an old universe is a prerequisite for an old Earth. And most YECs (all YECs?) do claim that the universe is as old as the Earth, for some reason. I agree that the article needs to be clarified and expanded. I think that the same ground has been covered elsewhere, so at least a "See also" section can be quickly populated with links.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Genesis says the stars were created after the earth so if the universe is old Genesis is wrong. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No shit. ТyJFBAA 14:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this worth expanding?[edit]

We risk duplication what's in Evidence against a recent creation. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. ТyJFBAA 14:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
With help I managed something that's perhaps slightly better than a redirect. Still the redirect would be to a gold standard article and this article is a bit stubbish. Anyone want to improve it? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Pardon me. YOU managed something? sorry to be petty, but don't take credit for other people's work. --Green mowse.pngGodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 16:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Was it better than a redirect when you left it? The redirect would be to here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


This turned up in Liberapedia, [1] and aparently refers to the webshite, http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html I need help from people who understand radioactivity etc better than I do to refute this. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hard to refute as there seems to be a great deal of Not even wrong. Kleinzeit (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

it's been dealt with, thanks. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)