|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Evidence against a recent creation
|
This Creationism related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
|
Cover Story This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page. Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies. Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here. |
TL dating[edit]
I used TL to date several basaltic rocks between the ages of 11,000 (+-500) years and 140,000 (+-10,000) years, with the younger dates being corroborated by C14 dating. I am advised the older date has been recently corroborated by another dating technique. (I will hunt out the reference to my thesis someday.)
— Unsigned, by: Dawnhaven / talk / contribs
King Clone should be added to this list[edit]
King_Clone
Dating methodology[edit]
King Clone was identified and the 11,700 years old age documented by Frank Vasek, a professor at the University of California, Riverside. After Vasek hypothesized that the creosote ring was in fact one organism, Leonel Sternberg (then a graduate student working in Vasek's lab), was able to show that plants in a ring had some identical characteristics, but those shared characteristics differed from other plant clusters. Vasek then used two methods to determine the age of the ring. One method counted rings and measured the distance of annual growth, and the other used radiocarbon dating on chunks of wood found in the center of the ring, and measuring their distance from each other and the living bushes. Both dating methods yielded the same result.— Unsigned, by: 162.210.104.22 / talk / contribs
Another argument against[edit]
The YECs have to spend so much time and (real or computer-equivalent) ink (of whatever colour) on 'justifying' their position: and whatever the equivalent of circular-based astronomy's epicycles would be. Anna Livia (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
And can this be used somewhere in the discussion? Anna Livia (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Old star[edit]
Would [1] be relevant here? Anna Livia (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Can we include some of the creationist responces and their rebuttals[edit]
I've noticed that for some of them they don't ention the responces creationists have gven. We should put them here and their rebuttals — Unsigned, by: 51.148.181.72 / talk
- Why? Most of the time the "rebuttals" are either attempts at fallacies or ignore the actual substance of the debunking. Further, why on earth would we treat creationism as if it had serious intellectual merit? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- If we could just dismiss creationist arguments out of hand, this article wouldn’t exist; adding in creationist arguments only to refuse them could be beneficial depending on the argument. In this case the rebuttal seems to just be a statement that isn’t true, not much refuting needed as “one ring per year” is already cited, so little point including it. Christopher (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- The other wiki indicates that there is some truth to the claim that multiple rings per year can grow, but this obstacle seems to have been overcome. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 15:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I suspected there’d be some truth, it’s never that neat with living organisms, but you can tell when a tree has grown an extra ring using the thick/thin comparison with other trees. It throws the exact age of specific trees into doubt but that’s it. Christopher (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that specific dating issue with some trees is not going to give you a young Earth.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I suspected there’d be some truth, it’s never that neat with living organisms, but you can tell when a tree has grown an extra ring using the thick/thin comparison with other trees. It throws the exact age of specific trees into doubt but that’s it. Christopher (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- The other wiki indicates that there is some truth to the claim that multiple rings per year can grow, but this obstacle seems to have been overcome. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 15:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- If we could just dismiss creationist arguments out of hand, this article wouldn’t exist; adding in creationist arguments only to refuse them could be beneficial depending on the argument. In this case the rebuttal seems to just be a statement that isn’t true, not much refuting needed as “one ring per year” is already cited, so little point including it. Christopher (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest that turning this into a "claim, rebuttal, claim" article would make it less readable. If there are factual errors in the article then they can be brought up here. If they make sense they should be incorporated. The article is not about opinions - it's about facts.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)