Talk:Age of Earth/Archive 1

message: ----
This article lacks information about the actual age of the Earth. That information should be put into the first paragraph. Also, it needs to be linked with the other articles we have about dating methods. AxelBoldt, Monday, April 29, 2002
----
I did a general copyedit and more wikifying, and added some specific things. Since I know someone will ask, my source on Aristotle is a letter to the editor of Science a week or two ago. Also, if we're going to talk about religious ideas, we should probably have something on the Hindu yugas. Vicki Rosenzweig
----
Seems to me that the Age of Earth page should link directly here, instead of a disambiguation page - what do you think? --Spangineer 21:38, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
----
Why not add a "See Also" with links to Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Gap Creationism, Intelligent Design and whatever other articles there are related to other views on the issue?  One doesn't even need to mention their points of view in the main article, just make the links available for those interested. --Spangineer 00:20, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
: I don't know about that.... Why should a science page link to a mythology page? and why those in particulare? Arn't their pages for the greek myths on origns? what about native american? or viking? IreverentReverend 12:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

message: Work is currently in progress on a page entitled Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared.  Also currently being worked upon is Wikipedia: NPOV (Comparison of views in science) giving guidelines for this type of page.  It is meant to be a set of guidelines for NPOV in this setting.  People knowledgable in many areas of science and the philosophy of science are greatly needed here.  And all are needed to ensure the guidelines correctly represent NPOV in this setting.  :) Barnaby dawson 21:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Invitation

message: An anon. added a list as a Reference section. The list is a good Further reading section, but I doubt these were used directly as references in the writing of the article. Therefore I am re-adding the list as such after I rollback to fix the deletion of info caused by the anons edit. Vsmith 01:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference section ==> Further reading 

message: This is not NPOV:
It is clear from zircons that the Earth is at least 4.404 billion years old.
4.255.42.26 00:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and your scientific evidence says ... ? Vsmith 01:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that have to do with a NPOV? "Clear" is a subjective word. If I look at a zircon, will I instantly realize "that the Earth is at least 4.404 billion years old"? 4.255.40.248 02:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, now I see clearly - it's the word clear that you object to. How is that POV? Maybe vague and assumes the reader knows what the clear refers to, but not a POV problem - just a wording problem. I did a search and the zircon evidence doesn't seem to be mentioned in the body of the article, just that bit in the intro. That does need to be addressed as it isn't clear from the body of the article just why it's clear from zircons... But, not tonight, I'm tired. Thanks for pointing that out. Later, Vsmith 03:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Added to the offending sentence. Also added two ext. links as references on zircon dating. Vsmith 15:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: tyvm. 4.255.40.38 17:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? Need to clarify zircon evidence 

message: Wisc. Edu. Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago
- this link is broken. Anyone know where a new copy of the article is?
--Wiserd 02:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did a bit of sleuthing - seems the page was renamed - still there w/ diff name. Well maybe it has been revised - don't remember, but the info is there. Vsmith 03:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wisc. edu link

message: Some creationist critiques are not problems since they seem to be caused by creationists having gaps in their understanding.
:This is an inappropriate and blatantly derogatory comment and has no place in a Wikipedia article.  I have removed it.  Salva 00:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Creationist-bashing