This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
“ | About 70% of the earth's surface is covered with water. Planet Earth should actually be called "Ocean" --Monty Halls [1] | ” |
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)
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)
[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)
"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)
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)
gt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.108.53 ( talk) 00:23, 11 September 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)
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)
I see values for the Earth's mass and principal moment of inertia in the article. Have any estimates been made of the planet's other moments and products of inertia? If that level of detail is considered beyond the scope of the present article, perhaps a reference could point to a source of more-detailed information about the Earth.-- Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
In science we are learning about the solar system. When we are watching video's every time we go on to different subjects like the stars, solar system stuff like that. When you watch the video it seems that you want to watch the solar system again and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.113.63 ( talk) 23:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
g —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.192.46.164 ( talk) 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Currently, the text says "About 3.5% of the total mass of the oceans consists of salt." It should state promille (salt content) instead of percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.226.125.80 ( talk) 00:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a common complaint, but on my computer, the pronunciation of 'earth' sounds terrible. It sounds like 'earse' or something like that. Can this be changed? Kevin Gable 23:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgable10 ( talk • contribs)
For as long as I can remember, the leading image on this page was the famous blue marble photograph taken by Apollo 17 - however, this has recently been replaced by another set of images (confusingly also called 'the blue marble' by NASA), but I think the original should be returned to the top of this article.
My reasons for saying this are:
1. The original image is one of the most famous photographs ever taken, and easily the most famous picture of the Earth.
2. The original is a Featured Picture (and has been since Nov, 2004).
3. The original is practically the only picture of the Earth used in scientific articles on Wikipedia, and is even cut/pasted in multiple pictures of astronomy-related articles.
4. The original is linked to on well over 2,000 Wikipedia pages (including user pages and talk pages), while the new one appears on a total of 14.
5. The new picture, though it encompasses more land mass, is significantly smaller when sized at 260px, and the details are far harder to make out.
Those, in short, are my reasons. Now I'm looking to find some consensus on the matter, whether in support or against the argument I have made. Spinach Dip 08:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
As I read it, three opinions favor the blue marble photo, one supports the new image, and two are somewhat neutral (including myself). As there is not an overwhelming support for the new image, I think precedent has some weight in terms of determining consensus. That, to me, indicates the blue marble image should be used. Is there any strong disagreement?— RJH ( talk) 15:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I mean it doesn't really apply to the planet Earth, but then neither does "Earthly" really. Serendi pod ous 07:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Creation/Evolution arguments will go on round and round and back and forth until we recognize the distinction between subjective belief and objective understanding. Creation arguments arise from the subjective belief that the universe was miraculously created by a supernatural creator, i.e., God. From an objective point of view - that is, based on what we can see or touch or otherwise experience - God's existence cannot be proven. Articles such as the current one should be based on the best available objective understanding of the Earth and its characteristics. At this writing, the modern theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the best and only objective description of physical mechanisms for the origins of life on this planet. The same goes for the many other theories describing the origins of the Earth and its moon. When better theories come along, they will no doubt replace the ones currently described here.-- Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur. Moreover, we should certainly disregard the "be courteous to the Young Earth brethren" nonsense about not losing our objectivity. The worse offense for this article to take is to uphold the loony choice out of some misguided attempt of offering a polite nod to a faith based theory of Earth's origins; a belief that has no place in this particular Article that deals with a scientific understanding. Everything else, as someone suggested, should be referred to other Wiki articles that were designed to allow for all of the debates/questions etc., surrounding the supposed controversy. Oh, and the post about the microwave oven made as a rebuttal to the insanity of YEC followers was brilliant! Cheers! 67.101.3.208 ( talk) 04:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)La-Tonia Denise Willis
The notion that the Average Orbital Speed of the Earth is over 29000 km/s, or ~1/10 of the speed of light, as displayed in the information box at the top of the page is ludicrous and absurd. Of course, I suspect that the author intended to write ~29000 m/s, which is more reasonable. Would someone with the proper editing privileges please rectify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.245.42 ( talk) 23:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
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. To think we are the masters of our ecosystem and not just another member of it is not only stupid, it's an incredibly dangerous idea. We are intimately connected to our environment and if it dies, so do we. Which is why we cannot afford to tamper with it. The human species is maybe 3 million years old at best, but we think we're more qualified to run a biosphere that has been regulating itself successfully for billions of years without any help from us. —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)
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)
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?
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 biblical 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.
First para "Home to millions of species,[11] including humans, Earth is the only place in the Universe where life is known to exist."
That should read '.... where life is known by humans to exist ........'. If there is life elsewhere in the universe(and there are a thousand billion galaxies each with a thousand billion stars)are we to assume that none of this life is self aware? Or do we take the view that America was discovered by Columbus, when people had been living there for tens of thousands of years. They both smack of self-centred arrogance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.84.25 ( talk) 20:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Life is the defining characteristic of Earth, and the fact that it is unique to Earth as far as we know is also a defining characteristic. We could qualify just about any fact about any subject with "known by humans", or other inane qualifications, but it's not necessary. Do we really need to have a metaphysical, psychological argument here? I think the wording is fine the way it is, but you could precede "known" with either "definitely" or "currently" if people really want. About the "including humans" part of the sentence, I can see the argument for just removing that, it's not really necessary. And the fact that Earth is so dominated by humans is covered in the last paragraph. LonelyMarble ( talk) 16:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
In addition, can it not be said that life exists on other planets, with the discovery of microbes in the martian soil. If this is correct, than clarification is required in the article, perhaps 'Sentient' or 'Eukaryotic' life may prove more correct. If this is incorrect, then the issue is moot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.68.174 ( talk) 04:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Note that none of the images on this article have Alt text configured, per WP:Alt text. This is a recent requirement that is being checked for FACs. Is anybody interested in addressing this? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 22:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just noted that the mean Radius of Terra is a semiprime, 6371 (the 1709th semiprime). This is purely a curio as it's quite interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkania ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
As I said I just thought it was an interesting curio, wasn't meant to be taken that seriously. Hawkania ( talk) 23:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to say: wow. I don't think I'd ever looked at this page before, and I'm amazed to discover it's a featured article - it must have been one of the hardest to write, as there's just so much to say. Huge congratulations to everyone who's been involved in writing this article and maintaining its quality. Robofish ( talk) 01:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The Earth article cites a sidereal year as 366.26 days, which is incorrect; 365.26 days is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukehasnoname ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
But how are we going to get through the day without a dozen wags changing the article to "Mostly harmless"?! — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Out of the terrestrial planets I'm fairly certain Venus is bigger than earth, so the sentence in the opening paragraph would be false... Jman279 ( talk) 06:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that the metric system is the world standard - but how about the inclusion of customary units for us Yanks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.43.45 ( talk) 06:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know that this is occasionally used as a name for the earth, but does it belong in the lead paragraph of this summarising article? John of Reading ( talk) 09:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there a conflict of interest here? I have a suspicion that most of this article was written by its inhabitants :-) Seriously, congratulations on a well-written and informative article. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 11:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I always seem to say this about most pages I lay my eyes on, but this one seems worthy enough. It's a featured article on the most notable topic in, er, the world. At least keep an eye out for vandals. This afternoon, things might start to heat up, so will semi-protection be even conceivable today? 2D Backfire Master words deeds 11:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The ref says 0.5 billion years, but the article (used to), and the Main page says 1.5 billion. Was there a better ref with 1.5 billion before? -- Jeandré ( talk), 2010-04-22t12:01z
Sorry just a novice user here so I don't know how to update the references correctly. I think the answer to how much longer life on Earth will exist has not been settled.
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/06/15/life-on-earth-and-other-worlds-could-last-longer-than-expected/
Novice user Lewis Haycraft
68.84.138.141 (
talk)
12:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 2010-04-22t12:50z
Wondering why Solar System is capitalized twice in the lead paragraph? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
All the cite notes are out of order in the text. Shouldn't they be arranged such that cite note #1 shows up first in the text, followed by #2 then #3 then #4 and so on? Also, the style is inconsistent in one place, it has [note 4] and another place it has [11] for the little superscript note.
Sorry, that was me. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 23:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Consider this: "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist.".
Now, if intelligent life were to, theoretically, exist elsewhere, then wouldn't that imply that life is known to in fact exist elsewhere? I'm wondering if parts of this article should be reworded to speak from a universally neutral perspective. I mean, in theory, if other alien beings (alien meaning not from Earth)were to read this article, then sections such as that would be contested. I know what you're thinking, and no I'm not crazy, and yes I realize this is an article written by humans who only know of the existence of themselves and the creatures on Earth, but I think that when we are talking about neutral point of view, we need to assume that Earth isn't the only place with life. Or at least talk as if we were an outsider looking in. 150.176.164.16 ( talk) 12:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
On a related note, I noticed RJHall has reverted overlinking to life in that sentence in the past. I think it's probably warranted to link life in a sentence that garners so much attention. And it's not like life is such a simple concept. LonelyMarble ( talk) 22:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of mention that Earth revolves around "the" sun, but no mention of WHICH Sun. If it's Sol, why not name it? Same goes for instances of "the" solar system (Milky Way) and "the" moon.
The Earth is round.It rotates around the world.We live on earth.
The Earth is round.It rotates around the world.We live on earth.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
“ | About 70% of the earth's surface is covered with water. Planet Earth should actually be called "Ocean" --Monty Halls [1] | ” |
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)
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)
[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)
"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)
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)
gt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.108.53 ( talk) 00:23, 11 September 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)
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)
I see values for the Earth's mass and principal moment of inertia in the article. Have any estimates been made of the planet's other moments and products of inertia? If that level of detail is considered beyond the scope of the present article, perhaps a reference could point to a source of more-detailed information about the Earth.-- Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
In science we are learning about the solar system. When we are watching video's every time we go on to different subjects like the stars, solar system stuff like that. When you watch the video it seems that you want to watch the solar system again and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.113.63 ( talk) 23:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
g —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.192.46.164 ( talk) 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Currently, the text says "About 3.5% of the total mass of the oceans consists of salt." It should state promille (salt content) instead of percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.226.125.80 ( talk) 00:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a common complaint, but on my computer, the pronunciation of 'earth' sounds terrible. It sounds like 'earse' or something like that. Can this be changed? Kevin Gable 23:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgable10 ( talk • contribs)
For as long as I can remember, the leading image on this page was the famous blue marble photograph taken by Apollo 17 - however, this has recently been replaced by another set of images (confusingly also called 'the blue marble' by NASA), but I think the original should be returned to the top of this article.
My reasons for saying this are:
1. The original image is one of the most famous photographs ever taken, and easily the most famous picture of the Earth.
2. The original is a Featured Picture (and has been since Nov, 2004).
3. The original is practically the only picture of the Earth used in scientific articles on Wikipedia, and is even cut/pasted in multiple pictures of astronomy-related articles.
4. The original is linked to on well over 2,000 Wikipedia pages (including user pages and talk pages), while the new one appears on a total of 14.
5. The new picture, though it encompasses more land mass, is significantly smaller when sized at 260px, and the details are far harder to make out.
Those, in short, are my reasons. Now I'm looking to find some consensus on the matter, whether in support or against the argument I have made. Spinach Dip 08:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
As I read it, three opinions favor the blue marble photo, one supports the new image, and two are somewhat neutral (including myself). As there is not an overwhelming support for the new image, I think precedent has some weight in terms of determining consensus. That, to me, indicates the blue marble image should be used. Is there any strong disagreement?— RJH ( talk) 15:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I mean it doesn't really apply to the planet Earth, but then neither does "Earthly" really. Serendi pod ous 07:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Creation/Evolution arguments will go on round and round and back and forth until we recognize the distinction between subjective belief and objective understanding. Creation arguments arise from the subjective belief that the universe was miraculously created by a supernatural creator, i.e., God. From an objective point of view - that is, based on what we can see or touch or otherwise experience - God's existence cannot be proven. Articles such as the current one should be based on the best available objective understanding of the Earth and its characteristics. At this writing, the modern theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the best and only objective description of physical mechanisms for the origins of life on this planet. The same goes for the many other theories describing the origins of the Earth and its moon. When better theories come along, they will no doubt replace the ones currently described here.-- Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur. Moreover, we should certainly disregard the "be courteous to the Young Earth brethren" nonsense about not losing our objectivity. The worse offense for this article to take is to uphold the loony choice out of some misguided attempt of offering a polite nod to a faith based theory of Earth's origins; a belief that has no place in this particular Article that deals with a scientific understanding. Everything else, as someone suggested, should be referred to other Wiki articles that were designed to allow for all of the debates/questions etc., surrounding the supposed controversy. Oh, and the post about the microwave oven made as a rebuttal to the insanity of YEC followers was brilliant! Cheers! 67.101.3.208 ( talk) 04:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)La-Tonia Denise Willis
The notion that the Average Orbital Speed of the Earth is over 29000 km/s, or ~1/10 of the speed of light, as displayed in the information box at the top of the page is ludicrous and absurd. Of course, I suspect that the author intended to write ~29000 m/s, which is more reasonable. Would someone with the proper editing privileges please rectify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.245.42 ( talk) 23:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
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. To think we are the masters of our ecosystem and not just another member of it is not only stupid, it's an incredibly dangerous idea. We are intimately connected to our environment and if it dies, so do we. Which is why we cannot afford to tamper with it. The human species is maybe 3 million years old at best, but we think we're more qualified to run a biosphere that has been regulating itself successfully for billions of years without any help from us. —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)
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)
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?
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 biblical 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.
First para "Home to millions of species,[11] including humans, Earth is the only place in the Universe where life is known to exist."
That should read '.... where life is known by humans to exist ........'. If there is life elsewhere in the universe(and there are a thousand billion galaxies each with a thousand billion stars)are we to assume that none of this life is self aware? Or do we take the view that America was discovered by Columbus, when people had been living there for tens of thousands of years. They both smack of self-centred arrogance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.84.25 ( talk) 20:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Life is the defining characteristic of Earth, and the fact that it is unique to Earth as far as we know is also a defining characteristic. We could qualify just about any fact about any subject with "known by humans", or other inane qualifications, but it's not necessary. Do we really need to have a metaphysical, psychological argument here? I think the wording is fine the way it is, but you could precede "known" with either "definitely" or "currently" if people really want. About the "including humans" part of the sentence, I can see the argument for just removing that, it's not really necessary. And the fact that Earth is so dominated by humans is covered in the last paragraph. LonelyMarble ( talk) 16:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
In addition, can it not be said that life exists on other planets, with the discovery of microbes in the martian soil. If this is correct, than clarification is required in the article, perhaps 'Sentient' or 'Eukaryotic' life may prove more correct. If this is incorrect, then the issue is moot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.68.174 ( talk) 04:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Note that none of the images on this article have Alt text configured, per WP:Alt text. This is a recent requirement that is being checked for FACs. Is anybody interested in addressing this? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 22:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just noted that the mean Radius of Terra is a semiprime, 6371 (the 1709th semiprime). This is purely a curio as it's quite interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkania ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
As I said I just thought it was an interesting curio, wasn't meant to be taken that seriously. Hawkania ( talk) 23:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to say: wow. I don't think I'd ever looked at this page before, and I'm amazed to discover it's a featured article - it must have been one of the hardest to write, as there's just so much to say. Huge congratulations to everyone who's been involved in writing this article and maintaining its quality. Robofish ( talk) 01:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The Earth article cites a sidereal year as 366.26 days, which is incorrect; 365.26 days is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukehasnoname ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
But how are we going to get through the day without a dozen wags changing the article to "Mostly harmless"?! — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Out of the terrestrial planets I'm fairly certain Venus is bigger than earth, so the sentence in the opening paragraph would be false... Jman279 ( talk) 06:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that the metric system is the world standard - but how about the inclusion of customary units for us Yanks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.43.45 ( talk) 06:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know that this is occasionally used as a name for the earth, but does it belong in the lead paragraph of this summarising article? John of Reading ( talk) 09:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there a conflict of interest here? I have a suspicion that most of this article was written by its inhabitants :-) Seriously, congratulations on a well-written and informative article. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 11:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I always seem to say this about most pages I lay my eyes on, but this one seems worthy enough. It's a featured article on the most notable topic in, er, the world. At least keep an eye out for vandals. This afternoon, things might start to heat up, so will semi-protection be even conceivable today? 2D Backfire Master words deeds 11:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The ref says 0.5 billion years, but the article (used to), and the Main page says 1.5 billion. Was there a better ref with 1.5 billion before? -- Jeandré ( talk), 2010-04-22t12:01z
Sorry just a novice user here so I don't know how to update the references correctly. I think the answer to how much longer life on Earth will exist has not been settled.
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/06/15/life-on-earth-and-other-worlds-could-last-longer-than-expected/
Novice user Lewis Haycraft
68.84.138.141 (
talk)
12:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 2010-04-22t12:50z
Wondering why Solar System is capitalized twice in the lead paragraph? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
All the cite notes are out of order in the text. Shouldn't they be arranged such that cite note #1 shows up first in the text, followed by #2 then #3 then #4 and so on? Also, the style is inconsistent in one place, it has [note 4] and another place it has [11] for the little superscript note.
Sorry, that was me. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 23:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Consider this: "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist.".
Now, if intelligent life were to, theoretically, exist elsewhere, then wouldn't that imply that life is known to in fact exist elsewhere? I'm wondering if parts of this article should be reworded to speak from a universally neutral perspective. I mean, in theory, if other alien beings (alien meaning not from Earth)were to read this article, then sections such as that would be contested. I know what you're thinking, and no I'm not crazy, and yes I realize this is an article written by humans who only know of the existence of themselves and the creatures on Earth, but I think that when we are talking about neutral point of view, we need to assume that Earth isn't the only place with life. Or at least talk as if we were an outsider looking in. 150.176.164.16 ( talk) 12:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
On a related note, I noticed RJHall has reverted overlinking to life in that sentence in the past. I think it's probably warranted to link life in a sentence that garners so much attention. And it's not like life is such a simple concept. LonelyMarble ( talk) 22:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of mention that Earth revolves around "the" sun, but no mention of WHICH Sun. If it's Sol, why not name it? Same goes for instances of "the" solar system (Milky Way) and "the" moon.
The Earth is round.It rotates around the world.We live on earth.
The Earth is round.It rotates around the world.We live on earth.