Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:23, 4 June 2016

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, the Creation/Evolution controversy, or the reality/actuality of either. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, the Creation/Evolution controversy, or the reality/actuality of either at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Baptist This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Baptist work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Kentucky Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Creationism: Young Earth creationism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Young Earth creationism task force (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

"Prove"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why can't the lead simply say that Ham's view is "contradicted by scientific consensus that the Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old"? Why does it have to say that "that evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records prove the Earth to be over 4.5 billion years old"? The first statement is both true and unremarkable, the second is not only philosophically untenable but will result in constant guerrilla attacks you folks will have to put down. (Unless perhaps that's the point: you enjoy the sport of putting down the rubes.)--John Foxe (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• because we assert the mainstream academic consensus - we just went over and over and over this above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article asserting the mainstream consensus, but it's possible to do so without using the word "prove." Why not do so?--John Foxe (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ea verba haec sunt Invidiae. Tu es Morianum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

indicente pro lenimentus ? Theroadislong (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be glad to have the assistance even of a Roman who uses capital letters.--John Foxe (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no problem with the article asserting the scientific consensus, but why can't it be done without using the word "prove"? Theories about origins are unprovable because they're beyond our ability to test.--John Foxe (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

They're not "theories" about the age of the earth there is hard scientific evidence and the evidence DOES prove that the earth is more than 4.5 billion years old, see for example. Theroadislong (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"Ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat". Socrates scit optimum. Tu es Morianum (talk)

The USGS article is an excellent summary of scientific consensus based on the assumption that if "we know the number of radioactive parent atoms present when a rock formed and the number present now, we can calculate the age of the rock using the decay constant ." Nowhere in the article is the word "proof" or "prove" used. That's the word I'm interested in eliminating.--John Foxe (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're trying to assert that the number of atoms in certain radioactive isotopes is somehow random, or that radioactive decay rates (for a large number of atoms) is random as well, I suspect that this conversation is probably pointless. No-one, let alone young earth creationists, has produced any evidence at all that radiometric dating is inaccurate. (There have been some hilarious attempts by people like Cook, Barnes and Hovind, which usually go something like this, but all have been comprehensively rebutted.) Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to assert anything beyond the fact that Origins are unprovable because they're incapable of being reproduced. If a USGS summary of the scientific consensus doesn't go near the word "prove," why does this Misplaced Pages article? Why can't the article simply say that Ham's view is "contradicted by scientific consensus that the Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old"?--John Foxe (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Because that leaves out the fact that scientific consensus is evidence based, making it appear as if it is a belief in the same way that Hams belief is. It is possible to make a wording without the word "prove" but it would have to make clear the fact that all available empirical evidence supports the mainstream conclusion about the earths age.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

" Origins are unprovable because they're incapable of being reproduced". Oh, I see, Ham's "were you there?" argument. I think we're done here. Black Kite (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not in fact the same argument, it seems to me John Foxe is simply argueing that assertions of "proof" should be reserved for positively conclusive evidence, which of course cannot be produced in cases like these. I have treied to insert a compromise wording that does not use the word "prove", but simply asserts that the full weight of all empirical evidence supports the current scientific consensus against Hams claims.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That's actially not what he's doing. But, regardless, read Age of the Earth; the first sentence is "The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years "; not "scientific consensus is that the age of the Earth is ...". Indeed, that article doesn't even mention any other view apart from in the hatnote. That's because it isn't necessary. Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually in the context of this article it is necessary. Because Ham is contradicting the scientific consensus about the age of the earth. It would be meaningless and absurd to write something that does not acknowledge that there are two different possible views, only one of which is backed by science. We couldnt for example just write "Ham says the earth is 6000 years old even though it is in fact 4.5 billion years old". The age of the Earth is not the same kind of fact as for example the shape of the planet which can be directly observed. The age of the earth can only be inferred and estimated from observations of different aspects of its geology, under the theoretical assumption of uniformitarianism - and it will inevitably have a margin of error. For these reasons we do have to explicitly say that the science estimates it as at least 4.5 billion years old, not that it is a "proven fact" - since that is not how the science actually works.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

the current wording is a compromise from flat out stating Ham's claims are wrong as WP:ASSERT would have us do. we are not going to waterdown that even more. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that per the argumentation I have laid out above that is clearly wrong. Flatly asserting that Ham is wrong is not a serious option. And there is no meaning in using the word "prove" as it is currently done since that is in fact scientifically inaccurate. The phrasing I introduced is both more accurate and better writing. And it does not water down anything, since it is entirely clear to any reader who is not a creationist that Ham has no scientific basis for his claim. Incidentally you also reverted a bunch of other changes wole sale such as the silly wording that says that Ham is contradicted by science, when in fact it is Ham who contradicts science (since Science is not actually responding to Ham but merely reporting the evidence), and the removal of unnecessary blank infobox parameters.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

of course it is a serious option. we would not pussyfoot around "His claim, based on an interpretation of the Bible that the population of New York is 100 is contradicted by scientific consensus " His claim is wrong, all mainstream academics would unhesitatingly state that it is wrong and we were following the sources most certainly could make that statement, too. But in deference to sensitive people we white washed the direct statement that his claim is wrong. We dont need to go any further.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes his claim is wrong, noone here is disputing that. What is disputed is the epistemic status of the scientific consensus which is not supported by proof but by the weight of the evidence to the contrary. But no, it doesnt make sense to simply describe an individuals view as being "wrong", in the context an encyclopedic article because that is not informative. It makes less sense to misrepresent scientific processes and ways of arriving at conclusions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

So you agree that we should go back to the simple "His claim that the earth is 6000 years old is wrong." I can support that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you know that intentionally misrepresenting other peoples viewpoints and arguments is against the civilty policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are not interested in utilizing the plain english representation of the situation, then I am not interested in discussing splitting epistemological hairs about "proof". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Unwillingness to discuss does not mean that you get to assert your preference as if it were somehow the default.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Btw. it seems to me that you are misapplying WP:ASSERT here. It says not to give the appearance of disagreement where there isnt any disagreement. But here the entire point that we need to convey is that Ham disagrees with science. Writing "Ham contradicts the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old" Both because that would be an extremely odd statement that begs the question, and because it actually misrepresents the science which does not actually consider that dating to be "a fact" in the way that for example the orbit of the earth or it shape are incontrovertible empirical facts. 4.5 billion is simply the currently most accurate estimate based on inferences with a rather large margin of error.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

because that language was settled on as a compromise for the flat out WP:ASSERTion that Ham's claims are wrong. We are not going to do any more namby pamby whitewashing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to intervene on what the text should say explicitly, but it seems to me that saying Ham's view is "contradicted by scientific consensus" provides for Ham and similar folks to treat the science in this case as something other than fact (call it long-tested scientifically estimated fact if you will). They disagree with fact. That means they are wrong, not simply disagreeing with this group of others they outright disparage. A compendium of facts should not give Ham and similar folks any out. Stevie is the man! 03:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Leaving out "prove" sounds simple, but it would mislead the reader as the result would then be similar to "Ham thinks 6,000 years old and other people think 4.5 billion". Actually, the latter figure is much more than an opinion, and "prove" is a brief and recognizable statement of what is known, namely that 4.5 billion years is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Prove is not accurate no, what is accurate is that Ham's belief runs counter to all available evidence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldnt say that he diusagrees with consensus (as I have also stated above), it is not just an opinion he disagrees with but the actual evidence. But evidence and proof is not the same thing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to quibble about that, then we can just settle the whole thing by going back to the previous version which simply identifies Ham's claims as being wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That would not make for a meaningful article, and it would set an extremely problematic precedence for the way we would write about religious people and other forms of non-scientific thought in general. Should we write for example that Nietszche was wrong in claiming that "God is dead" because science evidence suggests that "God" was never alive in the first place? Should we write about Jefferson that his belief that all humans are created equal contradicts the scientific fact that every human has a unique DNA sequence. etc. No, we should not. We should describe their beliefs, and we should do so in a way that it is clear whenever someone makes a claim that passes itself of as science but is not scientifically supported. Flatly saying that "Ham is wrong" is not encyclopedic, it is not accurate and it is not scientific. Saying that his claims are belief based and squarely contradict the evidence based conclusions of science is encyclopedic, accurate and scientific.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Ham is not making a religious claim - about which science doesnt care. He is making a scientific claim about which he is wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No, he is in fact making a religious claim, based on a religious text which he religiously takes to be inspired by god and therefore infallible. His claim that science is wrong is based directly on his religious belief, not on any aspirations to having come to a scientifically more sound conclusion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No traditional religious text says the universe is 6000 years old—if such a claim appeared in the Bible or other work, it could simply be an attributed statement balanced by the reality. Regardless, if "prove" has a non-fatuous meaning, 4.5 billion years has been proven, and an article should not present an age of 6000 years as merely one opinion in a world full of contrary opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You know very well that the claim of 6000 years goes back to Bishop Ushers calculation of the biblical genealogy, which predates the development of science by several centuries. It is of course a religious argument. And no one is suggesting to present this religious view as an opinion that is at the same level of the scientifically supported conclusion. You are raising a strawman.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

To assert that the age of the earth is a religious and not scientific claim is absurd. That he is attempting to make a religious based claims about a scientific subject is fine, but it is still a scientific subject which is adjudicated by scientific means and and those scientific means demonstrate that his claims are wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No, what is absurd is to be unable to understand that religious people making claims about how the earth was created and when based on religious evidence is a religious and not a scientific argument. Clearly you have your own competence issues, particularly regarding comprehending the civilty policy. I am done here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

that religious people make scientific claims under the guise of religion does not exempt the claims from the realm of scientific refute. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your point of view, but I prefer your calling Ham wrong rather than saying that science provides proof of something that by its nature can't be proved. Calling something "wrong" is the language of political or theological debate.--John Foxe (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Clearly there is a consensus here already for the existing wording. I dont feel a need to subject myself to more strawmen and insults to challenge that. You are not making the encyclopedia better or more scientific, and you are not doing science a favor either.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Consider the wording if Ham was not a Young Earth Creationist, but a Flat Earther. Would you find it necessary to point out the scientific consensus on the actual shape of the Earth, or would we simply say that he is wrong? The amount of scientific proof available is similar for both situations, apart from Ham's "were you there?" claim. Indeed, if we went into details on Ham's claims in this article (which we're probably going to have to do if we can't use "prove") then Ham would look even more ridiculous when it's detailed that he rejects radiometric dating, Carbon-14 dating, the radioactive decay constant, and multiple basic physical laws. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading the sentence in question, but I don't see the "prove" statement being presented as a fact and therefore not needing a discussion of whether or not we can say "prove". The statement is a dependent clause describing the scientific consensus, which is that the scientific evidence proves the 4.5 billion year age of the earth. This isn't saying whether the mainstream scientific community is right or wrong, but is describing the consensus/belief of that community. The "prove" statement is qualified and attributed to the mainstream scientific community, hence satisfying NPOV. A reverse of the statement, something like "...the scientific consensus on the age of the earth is contradicted by the YEC consensus that the Bible proves the age of the earth is 6000 years...", would be equally acceptable, IMO. Such a statement doesn't say that it is a fact that the Bible proves anything, merely that it is the YEC consensus/belief that such is the case. Again, maybe I'm misreading the sentence and other arguments, but IMO the current wording is acceptable for these reasons. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.livescience.com/43584-earth-oldest-rock-jack-hills-zircon.html

Assert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please consider WP:ASSERT and then understand why we should simply state that it is a fact that the Earth and the universe have ages that are on the order of billions of years. Scientific consensus is an awkward appeal akin to saying "it's the scientific consensus that the electron has a mass that is 1/1836 that of the proton". No, it's just a fact. jps (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, in the example you gave, you wouldn't use the word "fact": you would say "the electron has a mass that is..." rather than "it is a fact that the electron as a mass that is..." StAnselm (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

and we would say that someone who said "an electron weighs a gram" was wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

How would you write the sentence, "Joe Doe's belief that an electron mass the mass of a proton is contradicted by the fact that it has a mass that is 1/1836 that of the proton" without using the word, "fact"? jps (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"Although the mass of an electron is 1/1836 that of the proton, Joe Doe believes that it is the mass of a proton." StAnselm (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So you think we should have "Although the earth is over 4.5 billion years old, Ham believes that it is only 6,000"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That wording would be fine with me. I'm not sure why it's preferred. jps (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, this article is a bit trickier. You see, the really significant thing about Ken Ham is not that he believes the earth is 6000 years old (millions of people believe that); nor even that he believes the Bible teaches that the earth is 6000 years old (ditto). It's that he believes the fossil record and/or "real" science demonstrate that (or at least is consistent with) the earth is 6000 years old. That is, he is not just an adherent of creationism, but of creation science. It is this that should be in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

agreed, but none of these things are really facts because none of us will know exactly how old anything is unless we were there. I did a project on a sycamore tree in my backyard and concluded it was 8000 years old, but I cant really "prove" it I guess. So you cant really advocate one theory over another. 100.14.57.197 (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're trolling or not. Of course Ken Ham likes to say that you can only know how old something is if "you were there", but that's rather irrelevant to actual facts of the matter (which is that one can measure ages accurately without "being there"). So either you're gunning for LULZ or you're lacking WP:COMPETENCE. jps (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

well no actually, not trolling. I'm just saying there's a ton of people that believe in the big bang old earth theory and a ton that believe in the bible. Can't really know which one it is unless I was there. I don't need Ken Ham to tell me that. 100.14.57.197 (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It is undeniable that there are a ton of people that are wrong. That's not really relevant to our discussion here. And if you think you can't know which is which unless you "were there", you need to learn a bit more before contributing at Misplaced Pages. As it is, this kind of pontificating has no place on the talk page. If you want to have a discussion about why you're wrong, go ahead and engage me on my user talk page. Anyway, your contributions to this discussion so far are fairly useless, I'm afraid. jps (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, both Ham and his critics would agree that he has a different idea of what science is than they. I think this is a large part of what makes him notable: his philosophy of science, if you will. So I think that should be in the lead as well; the difference between Ham and real/mainstream scientists is not just a difference of numbers, even if they are different orders of magnitude: it's a difference in what Ham would call a worldview, including how to understand the world and how to practice science. StAnselm (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I'd disagree there; Ham doesn't have a different idea or philosophy of science, he merely rejects scientific facts and findings if they don't agree with his religious beliefs. That's not a scientific viewpoint at all. Black Kite (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ken Ham is certainly not a scientist, and he never identifies as such. He instead thinks that he is better than basically all scientists because he has a direct access to what he thinks is a source of divine knowledge which, to him, trumps every other possible claim. This isn't a "worldview" as most would describe it. It is a claim about privileged knowledge. jps (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

While Ham believes the Bible to be authoritative, he has some clever answers to the scientific consensus that are a lot more sophisticated than "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it." Lots of the folks in the scientific community oppose debates between scientists and creationists—some were aghast when Nye agreed to debate Ham—not just because it puts the mainstream on par with the fringe, but because creationists can summon awkward evidence that mainstream scientists simply ignore when agreeing to agree that the earth is >4.5 billion years old.--John Foxe (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted "awkward evidence" for a Gish Gallop through misinterpreted ideas. There is no "awkward evidence" when it gets right down to it. That's why talkorigins.org doesn't need updating. It's pretty funny to insinuate that mainstream scientists ignore evidence or agree to agree on an age as though they can't measure it. jps (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm no scientist, but I've been impressed with debate performances of YECs I've heard in the past. Hope you have the pleasure of meeting one in a public forum sometime, especially if you assume from the get-go that your opponent is a moronic obscurantist.--John Foxe (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct you are no scientist and this is NOT a forum. Theroadislong (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Right. I apologize.--John Foxe (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are interested in referring YECs to show me up, I am available on my talkpage. jps (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a "claim about privileged knowledge" - that's definitely a worldview. Or, to put my statement another way, Ham has a radically different epistemology. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The bible has served as a source of information for literalists for years, whereas the "consensus" age has been changed many times. We can't discredit one or the other without the sufficient evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.66.150 (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The evidence against the literalist position has been extant for more than a century. jps (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, if we're talking about something whether its 6,000 or billions of years ago, there's no way of definitive proof on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.57.197 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

While there is no "definitive proof" that it is "4 billion three hundred and thirty seven years old" there is "definitive scientific proof" that it is WAY older than 6K years. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

While there may be some debate as to exactly how old the universe is, throwing the 6,000 year figure in there is like considering the following when I ask the question "How much money is in my wallet right now?"

I remember withdrawing 1000 RMB earlier today, and I had less than 150 at the time, but I've spent somewhere between 80 to 120 since then. So it's probably somewhere around 1070 or 1030. But it could only 12 or 13 RMB (maybe what the bank gave me as 100 bills, what I thought were 100 bills, and what the shopkeeps accepted as 100 bills were really 1 yuan notes disguised as 100 RMB notes by the devil). Who knows? Unless I look in my wallet, there's "no" definitive proof. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

But that's the thing. You know for a fact that you yourself withdrew however much, and also know how much you yourself had. So you could say for a definitive fact without checking that that is how much money you had. No idea how you see the amount of money you hold in your wallet as an apropos analogy to how old the earth is. Again, I can't discredit one or the other without knowing, but then again, no one really can. For centuries, people have held the bible as fact. Likewise, people hold anything scientist deduce as fact without knowing for themselves the accuracy. Just consider Saurya Das and Ahmed Farag Ali's 'new' Big Bang Theory. Perhaps everyone will jump on that bandwagon and completely abandon the previous thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.57.197 (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Philosophical commentary about "where you there?" needs to take place elsewhere. This page is for discussing how to appropriately represent what the mainstream sources have to say about Ham. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Its not philosophical to say that we can't prove something that we actually do not know for a fact. That useless analogy was the only philosophical thing brought into this discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.57.197 (talk • contribs)

Does the Bible teach young Earth or allow for old Earth?

The Wiki page for Ken Ham seems to violate Wiki's own rules for commenting on its accuracy. Wiki can hardly deem its own content to be polite or verifiable. You start off saying that Ham's acceptance of the Bible's accounting of years which makes the Earth only about 6,000 years old "is contradicted by the fact that the age of the universe and the age of the Earth are on the order of billions of years." Rather than be condescending to those who don't think God is a liar, maybe you ought to reconsider your own view, albeit the majority view. Nor do the so-called Christians who preach "old Earth" billions have the intellectual upper-hand. The best they can do is avoid the problem of billions of years of vegetation on the 3rd day (which they call an "age," not a literal day) before the sun was created on the 4th day. Oops. If Wiki doesn't want readers to take offense at your tone, then don't post such a slanted attack article. (I find 99% of Wiki pages VERY helpful!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawyerwiggin (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 January 2016

The scientific consensus is that the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. If you wish to dispute this, I would direct you to the article Age of the Earth. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how a forthright statement concerning the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth is "condescending" or impolite, though it certainly is "verifiable". The only condescension I see here is the quote, from an above comment, referring to "old Earth" Christians as "so-called Christians".72.49.235.222 (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Evolution is real, the earth is old and wasn't created in six days. These are facts. You're gonna have to suck it up, boy. You're a hypocrite, boy. Impendingdoom240 (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Impendingdoom240: Please observe WP:CIVIL by not referring to other editors as "hypocrite" or by the diminutive "boy". This comment really added nothing to the discussion that hadn't already been said, and strikes me as a cheap shot. Acdixon 19:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Impendingdoom240: Yes, if you cannot be fair and WP:CIVIL while editing, I politely advise you not to edit any articles having to do with young Earth creationism. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Impendingdoom240: I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You guys are right, that was pretty immature of me. Im just sick of the YEC propaganda Impendingdoom240 (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The Old Testament was written by people who had no access to modern methods for determining the age of this or any other planet. "A long time" is about the best they could realistically come up with. The creation narratives given in the Genesis chapter of that book are unsurprising, of a kind with similar creation narratives in any other tradition of that era. These various narratives do not hold up well when exposed to modern understanding, and we cannot say, in Wikivoice, that the planet was created in historical times. It would be wrong.

Ken Ham is entitled to believe whatever he wants, especially if it is something taught by his tradition. We can report on his belief as factual, based on his own statements, even if what he believes is not. We need not hold him up to ridicule or humiliation for his honest beliefs, though there is a certain amount inherent in the situation itself, just as would be if someone were to state that they believed in the Ester Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, traditional beings with no natural existence of their own. Mr Ham would surely be aware of this, and if he is happy to proclaim such beliefs, then he must also be happy to accept what comes with them. --Pete (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Criticizing supporters of creationism does not excuse referring to them in demeaning terms like "boy" or inaccurately calling them "hypocrites." There's no need for Wikipedians to follow the incivility of the political world. (In passing, I don't know why believing "something taught by one's tradition" should be privileged. A lie is a lie whether it's written in Hebrew or Navajo.)--John Foxe (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

At no point did Skyring defend Impendingdoom240's language, but was commenting on OP's perception that the article is "condescending" (nevermind their Pharisaical denial of the possibility that sincere and devout Christians could reconcile their beliefs with evolution, as we're not baptized in the name of Ken Ham, but of Jesus). At any rate, his comments have been addressed and further discussion that doesn't really concern article improvement is starting to go against WP:NOTFORUM (yes, I'm aware I just contributed to that). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to @Impendingdoom240: for his apology—much better than any sort of Wiki-complaint. We don't have to agree, even about the most fundamental matters, to be civil in disagreement.--John Foxe (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I find it interesting that editors constantly violate WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTOPINION on this talk page. I don't think I have seen anything like this on a talk page for any other topic. It seems nearly every editor on this talk page is openly anti-Ken Ham and anti-YEC. If anyone wants to criticize Ham or creationism, there are plenty of low-level blogs for that. Lets try to have a degree of professionalism here. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Poll result

I have removed the results of the poll concerning who won the Nye-Ham debate. Although it was reported by Salon and New Republic, it was quite clearly an unscientific poll, and as a result shouldn't be included in a BLP. Salon explicitly states that "the self-selecting poll could have been invaded by evolutionists." Results of these sort of polls always need to be taken with a grain of salt, and so it shouldn't be in the article. StAnselm (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I was about to do it myself, but got distracted by something else. I get the feeling that this was just a question on their web site that anybody could vote in any number of times. Those kinds of polls fall victim to folks who feel zealously about something all the time. As a fan of the Kentucky Wildcats, I've seen it happen lots of times. Put up a poll concerning Kentucky on a web site - especially in the off-season when few other fan bases are paying attention - and you virtually guarantee that Big Blue Nation will stack the deck for Kentucky. The referenced debate generated a lot of interest, and it's not hard to believe that the pro-Nye side would decide to try an embarrass the other side by taking over a poll on a Christian web site. BTW, it could have just as easily happened the other way around. If this were a poll done with a credible polling methodology, it would merit reference here, but as it is, I agree that it doesn't.

@StAnselm: I might suggest that you leave a pointer to this discussion on Talk:Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate‎ to explain the change to those who might not be watching this page. Better to keep the discussion unified here than to have two separate threads. Acdixon 12:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Thank you for removing it. From experience and logic I know that articles like this are under a lot of danger of this. Anything that contradicts the Theory of Evolution, especially young Earth creationism, are very controversial and unpopular in this day and age, and as we can see in the discussion above, Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to be doing the best job in preventing bias on articles like this. Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

As the person who first posted the poll (as far as I know), I do understand why you think it does not belong here, but to say it doesn't belong because it is unscientific doesn't make sense. It is a poll on people's opinions on who won the debate, and opinions cannot be judged scientifically. It would be like removing the 'critical reception' part of every film page because film reviews are people's opinions and therefore aren't scientific, though I would be interested in hearing what you think would constitute proper methodology. I do think that the section concerning the debate should mention the general consensus of people regarding the outcome. Also, with a 92% support for Nye, the poll must have had an absolutely massive influx of 'evolutionists' (to use your term) if that is what swayed the vote. In short, I understand why the poll was removed, but I think it could easily be argued either way. ( MegaSolipsist) 12:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC).

There are such things as scientific polls. Megabucks are spent during campaign seasons to gather them. The sort of pollsters who get paid for their efforts try to get random samples of whatever group they're supposed to be polling (voters, Democrats, vegetarians, etc.) with a statistically calculated margin of error—which should be smallish if the poll is conducted correctly. By contrast, film criticism is rarely anonymous; usually a film critic (or at least the media entity they work for) sign off on the review.--John Foxe (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

With film reviews, we generally only post material from notable/significant reviewers. We don't generally give IMDB ratings, for example. As far as this poll goes, the 92% figure is very dubious - it was reported when the poll was still going; AFAIK no-one has reported on the final figure. StAnselm (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Scientific consensus wording

I've observed the editing back and forth for a while, and I don't see anything wrong with the proposed wording: "... is contradicted by the measurements of the age of the universe and the age of the Earth being billions of years."

The phrasing "...is contradicted by the scientific consensus that the age of the universe and the age of the Earth are on the order of billions of years" sounds a bit weasely to me. I.e. is there an "unscientific consensus"? Or some scientists do not agree about these measurements? What exactly is "on the order of billions"? (It may indeed be the case, if RS to this effect exist.)

In general, it seems that in an article related to the creationism topic, the language should be very straightforward, and if there's nothing majorly wrong with saying "contradicted by the measurements..." then I would support this version, as not open to the interpretations as I mentioned above.

Would like to hear some feedback on this. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely. We don't say that "there is scientific consensus that 2+2=4", even if some people choose to dispute that. There is a certain level of accepted fact about the natural world where it's unnecessary, and even a bit misleading, to use "scientists say..." wording. Moreover, I don't understand the appeals to consensus that some of the people involved in this edit war are making (e.g. ). It looks to me, at a glance, like the last discussion on this subject favored omitting the "scientific consensus" wording and simply presenting facts as facts. MastCell  23:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Could you please comment here? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with using the word "measured" here is that it doesn't have the nuance that it might have in other articles. In Age of the universe, it says "The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years ((13.799±0.021)×109 years) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model." (emphasis mine) It is not "measured" in quite the same way that the "distance between New York and Chicago" is measured, and comparing it to 2+2=4 is a false analogy. StAnselm (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Now you are just parading your ignorance. It is measured using exactly the same kinds of reasoning as it used to measure the distance between New York and Chicago which is a measurement that depends on the accuracy of your geodetic model just as much as the age of the universe depends on the accuracy of your cosmological model. jps (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

How about "contradicted by the current estimate of the age of the universe being 13.799±0.021 billion years"? The source provided uses the word "estimated". Actually, Ham's sourced belief here is only relating to the age of the earth - I presume he believes the universe is the same age of the earth, but that belief would need a citation. StAnselm (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Prob should hear from I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not psyched about the "current estimate" wording, because it incorrectly implies that other estimates might be more in line with Ham's claims. I also think St. Anselm misunderstands the concepts of measurement and estimation. All measurements contain a degree of uncertainty, from the age of the universe, to the distance between Chicago and New York, to the mass of an electron. For the purposes of an in-depth discussion of measuring the age of the universe, it is appropriate to elaborate on the models and estimates used and their degrees of uncertainty. But when discussing someone who believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old, it is appropriate to simply say that the Earth's measured age is on the order of billions of years. This is, in itself, an estimate (the clue is the words "on the order of", and the lack of an exact number), and encompasses the entire range of plausible values and measurement error. I'm opposed to trying to find ways to water it down or equivocate, when this wording is entirely correct and accurate. MastCell  00:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not an estimate. It's a precise measurement. The "estimated" aspect that Wright is referring to is on the basis of model uncertainties that are at most 10 to 20% (and most astronomers agree are not likely relevant post Planck). This is much like someone arguing that the distance between New York and Chicago is 1.5 feet instead of 713 miles and then complaining that the measured distance between the two cities "is only an estimate" because another geographer pointed out that the driving distance could be estimated to be 790 miles instead of the 713 mile great circle distance. jps (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This version by MastCell is straightforward and will probably help avoid misunderstandings:

• Ham believes, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, whereas the measured ages of the universe and of the Earth are in the billions of years.

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a fine version. Note that the numbers I used for the distance between New York and Chicago are proportioned exactly the same way Ken Ham proportions his belief in the age of the universe. The uncertainties on the distance are even of similar order, amusingly. Just underscores how precisely counterfactual the denial that Ken Ham engages in actually is. jps (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The age of the Earth is based on several lines of evidence, with some inference, all giving pretty good consistency. They are not, however, direct measurements of the age of the entire Earth. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

And the distance between New York and Chicago is based on several lines of evidence, with some inference, all giving pretty good consistency. Your use of the adjective "entire" makes me think that you have your own pet ideas about where you think the inconsistencies may lie, but no matter. The facts remain facts regardless of what you (or I) think. The fact that Ham simply denies basic facts about the reality we all inhabit is really not up for debate and neither is the basic scale of the age of the Earth (which is nowhere near the scale claimed by Ham). jps (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about this, then perhaps you should fix the article: Age of the Earth. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing that I wrote here is contradicted by that article. Start with the first sentence, for example. Don't see any room for claims that the age of the Earth given there is anything but a measurement (whatever the hell you mean by "direct" I cannot say). jps (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

What the "hell" I mean? Making an inference about the age of the Earth, when none of us were there when the Earth first formed, is, yes, indirect. Not really the same as measuring the distance between two cities. If you want to insert the word "fact" into the lead of Age of the Earth, be my guest. I will be interested to see the reaction. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you have a reading comprehension problem. Go read the first sentence of Age of the Earth. Are you really attempting to use "Were you there?" as an argument here? jps (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir/Madam, you seem to be personalizing this. Please avoid this. I'm reading the article, Age of the Earth, yes. And I'm reading both the first and second sentence. Again, if you want to insert the word fact into one of those sentences, I would be interested to see the reaction. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stick to the article at hand. We are talking about facts here. The age of the Earth is a fact. If you think it is important that the fact that the age of the Earth is on the order of billions of years show up in other articles, please talk about your desires at those other articles. For now, we are here talking about the facts here. jps (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

jps, it is true that the scientific majority believes the evolutionary age of the earth. The article reflected that fact. We don't need to change (and we should not) the article to satisfy your strong dislike for Ken Ham, AiG, and YEC. The wording if fine the way it is. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The "scientific majority" is irrelevant. The fact that is relevant is the actual age. I LOVE Ken Ham, please stop saying otherwise, thank you very much. The wording is not fine as it is. The wording implies that these facts are only opinions in contravention of WP:ASSERT. jps (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If I have misrepresented your feelings towards Ham, then I do apologize. But regardless, your edits are unnecessary, and I do think you have a strong bias against (different from dislike or hate) Ham and YEC. If you didn't, you would be OK with the current wording. The evolutionary age of the earth is an estimate (yes, it is). Why is it wrong then to describe it as such? --1990'sguy (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Now we all have our biases and you wear yours on your sleeve. Just so. The goal of Misplaced Pages is to present facts as facts and opinions as opinions. Here, the fact at issue is the fact (NOT OPINION) that the Earth/universe is billions of years old. Misplaced Pages, wherever occasion to mention this fact comes up, is required per its policies and guidelines to make it clear that this is a fact and not an opinion. You are arguing that the age of the Earth/universe is an "estimate". Above, I have carefully outlined why this is hardly relevant to the point at hand (the point that Ham denies the fact of the age of the Earth/universe being on the order of billions of years). It is wrong to imply or insinuate that this is not a fact which is what the attribution to "scientific majority" or "evolutionary thinking" or "scientific consensus" does. Because, you see, these measurements are not just a bunch of people agreeing. These are measurements just like the distance between New York and Chicago (see above). Do you understand? jps (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I commented on the phrase "...is contradicted by the scientific consensus that the age of the universe and the age of the Earth are on the order of billions of years". I.e. is there an "unscientific consensus"? Or some scientists do not agree about these measurements?

The problem is WP:weasel with this wording being subject to various interpretations. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem is trying to assign the word "fact" to something that is an inference and mostly a statistical inference. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

All measurements are inference at some level. This would mean that no measurements are facts. It's also 100% false that it is mostly a statistical inference. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself. jps (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The wording describes the fact that there is a consensus among the majority of scientists that the evolutionary age of the earth is true. There are plenty of scientists who disagree. These two statements are facts. The wording does not violate WP:weasel. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There are not plenty of scientists who disagree. There are essentially zero scientists who disagree. And the fact that you want to change the subject to a question of how many scientists disagrees is exactly the problem. This is not an opinion. This is a fact. jps (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

How about this variation on MastCell's text: Ham believes, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, whereas the the universe and the Earth are billions of years old. Just stick to the facts without the "measured" red herring. On another point, it looks jps put a POV tag on the article—that is not a good idea because it encourages others to do the same whenever they don't like something. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You can feel free to remove the POV tag. I don't know what to do when there is a problem like this. Your version is fine with me. I just don't want to violate WP:ASSERT. jps (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

May work -- this avoids the whole "scientific consensus" debate. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with any agreed upon version, but may I ask why anyone would object to "scientific consensus"? This is the wording that is often use to calm down opposing sides and shows that not everyone agrees, but the current consensus is -whatever-. I am not sure why anyone would disagree with that wording on both sides of the discussion. Lipsquid (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Because the consensus of scientists is quite immaterial to the fact that the age of the Earth has been measured. It's like saying, "The scientific consensus is that the distance between New York and Chicago is 913 miles." That is an unencyclopedic way of reporting that fact. That is exactly why we have WP:YESPOV. The age of the Earth/universe isn't an opinion. It is a fact. jps (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I get it, I often edit pseudoscience articles so I get used to giving people leeway to express opinions when those opinions, however crazy, are backed by somewhat scientific sources. Lipsquid (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. We should have something more like: Ham believes, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, whereas the the universe and the Earth are believed to be billions of years old according to the Theory of Evolution.

The age of the Earth and universe are estimates, not hard, solid, observed facts (whether you like it or not, that's the case). They seem to be very precise estimates, but they are still estimates. We shouldn't go beyond saying that here.

Better yet, lets just keep the "scientific consensus" wording. The wording is good the way it is. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this statement illustrates perfectly the problem. You are ignorant of the fact that the age of the Earth and universe are measurements and they are hard, observed facts just like any other measurement. I understand that you have been indoctrinated to think otherwise, but Misplaced Pages is based on mainstream understanding and not the understanding imparted by one's fundamentalist religion. The reason the wording is no good is because it obfuscates this fundamental fact about the reality we live in. It misleads the reader into thinking exactly the misconception you outline, that the age of the Earth/universe are not "hard, solid, observed facts" when, crucially, they actually are. I couldn't have asked for a better object lesson than this. We need to avoid any weaseling into the idea that these facts are actually opinions. jps (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir/Madam, please cease making derogatory comments about other editors. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing at all derogatory about what I wrote. It is okay to be ignorant. It is even okay to be indoctrinated. There is nothing wrong with that. Such people are free to come here and help on any number of things which do not require someone who isn't so blinkered. However, when it comes to reporting such fundamental facts about reality such as the Age of the Earth or the Age of the universe, the opinions of those who have been indoctrinated to believe, for whatever reason, that the facts associated with those topics are not actually facts really do not belong influencing the content of the encyclopedia. It's a harsh reality, but it is not derogation of the fundamental human worth of the other people with whom we share this cyberspace. jps (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Christianity articles
• Unknown-importance Christianity articles
• C-Class Baptist work group articles
• Unknown-importance Baptist work group articles
• Baptist work group articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Kentucky articles
• Unknown-importance Kentucky articles
• WikiProject Kentucky articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Creationism articles
• Mid-importance Creationism articles
• C-Class Young Earth creationism articles
• High-importance Young Earth creationism articles
• Young Earth creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles