Talk:Earth

POV

The article says, and I quote, "a modern perspective of the world as an integrated environment that requires stewardship." I'll have to argue that this is most certainly Not a modern perspective. Implicit in the idea of stewardship are the assumptions that man is even qualified for such a position, and moreover that humans are some special divinely appointed, superior creatures who's job it is to run the world. To think of ourselves as stewards is to put ourselves above the environment instead of acknowledging that we are in fact a part of it, dependent on it, evolved from it, and in no way separate or superior. Put more simply, the world does not belong to humans. This is a dinosaur of an idea that has been around since people thought the earth was at the center of the universe and that the universe itself was created solely for our use and benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.238.161 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This article shows extreme bias in stating that life on earth "evolved" 4 billion years ago... After all, evolution is just a theory and this article completely avoids all other explanations of the origins of life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.99.203 (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm... http://www.notjustatheory.com/ 83.150.146.48 (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, the site you linked to shows even more bias than this article. It makes completly unsubstantiated claims out of the blue, then it cites such laughably questionably sources as the "American Heritage Dictionary" and "Decision of the Court Striking Down the Cobb County Evolution Disclaimer." Additionally it attempts to confuse the issue by contradicting itself repeatedly, for example, it includes "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution" when it clearly states later that "Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!" This not only classifies evolution in two incompatible ways, as theory and fact, it also makes redundantly the obvious statement that, while correct, employs deceptive rhetoric in order to confuse readers into thinking that information can be "triumphantly a theory," a clear logical impossibility. They also forgo the inclusion of a superior character encoding such as UTF8 in favor iso-8859-1, an encoding renowned for its use in propaganda, which in itself is a testament to the pure functionality of the site's content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.99.203 (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed here. A scientific theory is not merely a guess. That would be a hypothesis, which evolution is not. --Evice (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

To the original poster - before you make comments such as this, I would recommend you do a great deal more research. This is a talk page and is thus not the place to carry out an evolution-creation debate, but I or others can provide you with some if you so desire. Until then, please make sure your comments and/or suggestions have a strong and verifiable foundation before requesting their influence on the article. RadicalTwo (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely the first time I have heard a character set accused of propaganda and bias. Nice troll! JPotter (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, clearly only non-Unicode character sets can be trusted. Never mind the fact that the creator of this section ignored the fact that Wikipedia uses UTF-8, raising the question of his/her presence on this site. --Evice (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Earth was made 6,000 years ago. how can it been formed 4.54 billion years ago, that's ridiculous. The Bible is clear that Adam, the first man, lived only 6000 years ago. Adam was created on the sixth day of God's Creation Week, so according to the Bible the earth must be only 6000 years old too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.134.124.248 (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article needs to be neutral about the origins of life. The fact is that we simply do not know. Were any of you there at the creation of the Earth (and Universe)? No. Therefore, we cannot know. But, there are only two options (except for the Universe has always existed) for the origin of life, which are: spontaneous Big-Bang, with life arriving by macroevolution OR a personal God created the Earth (as recorded in the Bible). I think you should either make this article neutral, such as "many scientists believe the Earth was created 4.54 billion years ago, but they are not quite sure." OR include a section discussing Big-band vs. God (but not in a debate way; just pure presentation). What do you think?

Absolutely not. I am not going to start a science-vs-bronze age book debate here, but I will say this: The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of an old planet on which evolution proceeded over millions or billions of years. Using false dichotomies and "science isn't sure so let's not trust it" arguments is not going to get you anywhere. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 03:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"We don't know"? There are lots of pieces of evidence pointing to Earth being a few billion years old. Not to mention the fact that people have existed for longer than merely 6,000 years. --Evice (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My microwave oven works on the principles of a number of physics 'theories,' but no-one doubts its origins or that they will heat your soup. This debate would be better placed under the page Genesis. The literal bibical view is held by a minority of human beings. We would need to provide references to how the Earth was formed in all other religions just to keep a balanced view. If you want proof that science is correct, just go into your kitchen, *bing* Kayakboy (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.168.199 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We should be courteous, even though this is a sensitive issue. Do not use informal degrading words like please. On the subject I do not believe using the supposedly Biblical dating of 5,000 years as the age of earth is scientifically correct as we have records of history dated past 5,000 years. In addition there's no except in the Bible that I know of that directly states the earth is 5,000 years old. Mutation/Evolution is observed and is a fact. On the other hand there shouldn't be attacks on the creationist theory as there is no evidence against it. It is indeed entirely possible that the universe was designed by "higher order" existence. But the page should be scientific and statements must have reasonable scientific basis.

Round

I think this article should remain neutral about this dispute. Until someone can actually prove that the Earth is round, the article should only treat the round earth theory as theory, and not fact. Change it so that it states that the Earth is flat, and unbiased article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.69.135 (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you are saying that you believe the world is flat? Uh, yeah. Whatever you say, buddy. Doomshifter (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It probably was a facetious posting. :-) —RJH (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

gt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.108.53 (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

gt? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

uh we have sattelite pix to SHOW its round. look at the moon. if keep sailing and walking in a straight line ull end up where you started. is this not proof?? *dream on*dance on* 20:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane (talk • contribs)

Occam's razor applies here. If the Earth is not a simple and elegant spheroid resting in gravitational equilibrium, then the anonymous editor will need to justify the turtles all the way down with suitable citations. ;-) —RJH (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

1. a lunar eclipse shows the earth is round 2. laws of gravity would not work with a flat earth 3. when's the last time you heard the news say some fell off the edge of the earth. ;) (excuse me for the sarcastic joke) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.168.199 (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion for this talk page

Could we add a disclaimer at the top of this talk page (I suppose under the one related to Mostly Harmless) stating that the information on the Earth article is scientifically oriented, especially the age of 4.54 billion years? The complaints from young earth creationists are getting repetitive. --Evice (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that has been debated before and we did try putting in a notice. But the consensus was then to remove it. Instead, such complaints are usually just directed to the prior discussions, or to the Age of the Earth article. Another approach would be to view all such postings as a "teachable moment" and don't sweat their non-scientific viewpoint. You could also write a carefully thought out opinion piece on the subject and post it. :-) —RJH (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of this page is to detail the technical undisputable scientific facts about the earth. The fact that it's round, goes around the sun, has a moon going around it, and has existed for over 4 billion years. None of it is theory. If creationists choose not to believe it that's up to them, but all the data in this article should be what science has proven and nothing more. If we start adding crackpot stories from books of fiction then where do we stop? I'm sure there are plenty of science fiction novels we could quote from as well as quoting from (fiction that is) the bible. It's a story book with some rules designed to try and bring order to a society that needed it at the time. Not that any of the followers of that book follow the rules in it anyway. How many people have been executed for having an affair recently? The bible states they should be. You'd think the creator of the planet would have known it was round also. Well, if the book had been written by God then he'd have mentioned it. But no, it was written by people. God didn't create man, it was the other way around. How brainwashed must people be these days to believe in that nonsense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.246.115 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with most or all of that comment, I just want to point out that this is not the place to start a debate on the topic of religion or Christianity, which is what the post morphs into halfway through. Back on topic to the article and the notice, I think a notice would be a bad idea, as it hints too much at the popular "Teach the Controversy" so many scientists now hear. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? It's the opposite of "teach the controversy." It's saying that YEC views have no place on this article, and that only scientific facts do. The point of the notice would be to discourage pseudoscientific complaints from young Earth creationists, an example of which can be found near the top of this page and in the archives. --Evice (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, you seem to be under the impression that the notice is for the article itself. I clearly said it's for the talk page, which has repeatedly ended up with YEC-based complaints. --Evice (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

[re-indent]: I did misinterpret your comments, yes. Your original post states that "the information on article is scientifically oriented"; I have enough debates with creationists to know that they will seize on the phrase "this information is scientific(ally oriented)" as "evidence" that there are other (and as they would assert, equally valid) viewpoints. Your new post makes it much clearer that it would be more of a discouragement from placing YEC-based comments. For the record, I never, as far as I can remember, thought the notice would be on the actual article; Just clearing that up. Back on track, as long as the notice is explicit like "Young Earth Creationism-related posts have no place on this talk page" then I approve. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 01:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Update: I added a disclaimer; edit it as you see fit. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 01:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to use the term "scientific" positively toward science, rather than the anti-science usage you've encountered. I wasn't aware of the usage you mentioned since I don't specialize in biology and don't debate often. --Evice (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a biologist either - I'm a propulsions engineer - but yes, creationists will try anything to make their views look credible. On a sidenote: Within minutes of adding the notice, it was taken down due to being deemed "pointless and dumb". I've re-added it - and improved it in an effort to pacify the complaint - but I do believe that, as I believe the the phrase is, "the box's days are numbered". -RadicalOne---Contact Me 01:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I know the list of headers is getting decidedly bloated, but we may want to consider including the {{RecurringThemes}} template to create a list of such topics.—RJH (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That isn't a bad idea, since the talk page for the evolution article has the FAQ template that debunks common complaints, similar to what you're suggesting. --Evice (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

i have a ref for earth mean density

i can't put this in because i can't edit this page

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/KatherineMalfucci.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.182.192.11 (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I added your reference. You probably cannot edit this page because you are not logged in to an account. The Earth article was semi-protected by administrator User:Jmlk17 more than a year ago to prevent vandalism (because it's a high-profile article). If you want to edit it and other semi-protected pages, you can do so by creating an account and logging in. Nimur (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the above references is unsuitable for the data point since it lacks the listed precision. (Which is why I removed it: sorry.) I think the data comes from Yoder (1995), but unfortunately that is currently inaccessible.—RJH (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Both Yoder (p.8) and Allen's Astrophysical Quantities (p.12) have 5.515 g/cm³. NASA has 5515 kg/m³. JPL has 5.5134 g/cm³, which probably includes the atmosphere because it was Earth's mass derived from satellites divided by the volume of a sphere having its mean radius. I haven't located the source of the figure now in the article, 5.5153 g/cm³. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The 5.515 value seems to be pretty widely published and probably has enough precision for wikipedia purposes, I think. The extra digit doesn't seem to add much value. :-) —RJH (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to post this

but, while there is a wiki article for underwater, there is no equivalent article for underground. I can't find an appropriate article to add to the disambig page. Is there one? Serendi^podous 00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think lithosphere, crust (geology), and mantle (geology) could all be linked in a sentence explaining that underground usually means below the surface of the Earth. I noticed that Earth's surface redirects to lithosphere at the moment. LonelyMarble (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm, am I missing something? Below the surface of the Earth is the very definition of underground, so that would just result in a link to the wiktionary. I think the Structure of the Earth article covers the above linked topics in some detail, and it is already linked in this article.—RJH (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why no Fahrenheit?

It seems to me it would make sense to include the surface temperatures in the sidebar in Fahrenheit as well, regardless of their scientific acceptance, they are used by one of the largest countries on the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarfyperson (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is an encyclopedia, and those temperatures teach me nothing. I shouldn't have to learn another "language" just to get information from the world's single largest source of collaborative knowledge. 67.106.115.42 (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, every industrialised nation in the world uses metric/SI units. Even the single industrialised nation that does not generally use them do use them in scientific/medical/etc contexts. In my mind then there is hardly justification for including conversions to that unit in a scientific article. This is backed by Wikipedia:MOS#Units_of_measurement. Ben (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a mouse-over tag we can use that will provide Fahrenheit in a pop-up? Otherwise I agree, plus it clutters up the text.—RJH (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The template could be modified to have a third set of fields for Fahrenheit. As has been said, due to the scientific context, it's otherwise reasonable to omit Fahrenheit, but since this is a Earthly weather temperature, I think a fair argument for an exception can be made. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to point out a slippery slope, but we need to be careful. Once extra conversions begin to be added in places throughout this article (particularly via a template that is used on many articles) they're likely to creep their way into other articles of a similar nature via that template (editors feel compelled to keep templates as populated as possible) and throughout the text, which in many instances will mean there is a potential for three units of measurement whenever a temperature is mentioned. Then it's likely the the case with respect to distance will appear .. Ben (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And so on. I agree. Keep the temperatures in Centigrade; Farenheit, while acceptable for colloquial use, is not widely accepted in scientific material. I vote that adding them would cause more disruption (and potential for damage later on) than the benefits of appeasing a minority. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 02:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm American and I was taught that Celsius/Centigrade is usually used in scientific contexts. Considering the fact that this page has a lot of scientific information, we should use that. --Evice (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Earth" name

“ About 70% of the earth's surface is covered with water. Planet Earth should actually be called "Ocean" --Monty Halls ”

Perhaps this quote can be inserted, also I actually think that "Earth" is better changed to a number eg in the form 11,15,50 . The name could then also inmediatelly give the position of the planet in the univers using the Cartesian coordinate system; see Cartesian_coordinates. Include a section on alternative names in the article. KVDP (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose—I'm not sure that the first is sufficiently notable to be worth including; we had enough trouble with "Blue Planet", which seems like a trivial name that is rarely used. The second would fall under WP:OR. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Moon Theory

"Some of this object's mass would have merged with the Earth and a portion would have been ejected into space, but enough material would have been sent into orbit to form the Moon." this is a sentence after the moon theory is described. It is told as a fact, though it is not. Different simulations yield different results. I will re-write the paragraph from a non bias (or bullshit) perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Holmes II (talk • contribs) 23:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Watch it. Your wording does you no favors, and if your edits are unconstructive, they will be reverted. Rapidly. And if you repeatedly add them, you will suffer consequences. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 23:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. The line about not being proven - what hypothesis do you favor, by the way? - has been left in, albeit made slightly more neutral. I also re-added the previous sentence. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 23:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The new editor would benefit from reading Wikipedia:Civility.—RJH (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 19:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)