Age of Earth

[Codeman]

Ok, I know this has probably been asked...

I have been reading in my Geology Text Book- says Earth is 200mill ys old. I say "ok, why?"

So... Can anyone list all, or at least most of the methods that can be used to date the earth. I know there is Radiosomethingrather, but can I get some more, along with the age that those methods estimate it at. I know none of them are entirely accurate, but I am looking to see if I can find an average or something...ok?

thanx
Codeman

 

[Codeman]

By the way...if this is in the wrong spot- sorry!

If anyone actually has a list that would be cool- email it to me at Codeman61185@aol.com

I am looking for both sides of the YEC and OE esimates and methods. Dont really care about the explainations though- unless I ask later

 

[herev]

I know there is Radiosomethingrather,

yea, mine's broke, so I can't help . Seriously, I'll wait on one of the scientist to assist you. Good luck

 

[gluadys]

Ok, I know this has probably been asked...

I have been reading in my Geology Text Book- says Earth is 200mill ys old. I say "ok, why?"

So... Can anyone list all, or at least most of the methods that can be used to date the earth. I know there is Radiosomethingrather, but can I get some more, along with the age that those methods estimate it at. I know none of them are entirely accurate, but I am looking to see if I can find an average or something...ok?

thanx
Codeman

Actually the Earth is 4500 million (aka 4.5 billion) years old, so either your geology text is way out of date or it is referring to a specific geological feature that is only 200 million years old.

Radiometric dating is the method of choice for getting an absolute age of the earth and any of its geological features. But it is limited to dating igneous formations (e.g. lava flows). It cannot directly measure sedimenatary rocks, so they have to be dated relative to (i.e. older or younger than) a datable igneous formation.

For all other really old dates, one has to use relative dating. This can tell you which formation is older than another so you get strata in the right chronological order, but only rough estimates of how old they are.

Stratigraphy was one of the first recognized ways to do relative dating. Back in the 17th century Nicolas Steno recognized that 1) sedimentary rock is always laid down in horizontal layers, and 2) younger sedimentary rock is always formed on top of older sedimentary rock.

He also formulated the relationship between objects found in rock and intrusions into rock layers. He recognized that when two objects come together, the harder object will leave an impression on the softer object. So "veins" of gold or other metal in mines, take the shape they do because the mineral ore was soft when it intruded into the interstices between older, already hardened rock. While fossils of teeth, shells, etc. must have been first buried in soft material such as sand or mud which hardened around them. This means a fossil is always as old or older than the rock it is encased in.

That takes us to another means of relative dating: faunal succession and the correlation of fossils. This was discovered by William Smith in the early part of the 19th century. Like Steno he noted that certain strata are always in a constant relation, with younger rock on top of older rock. He also noted that each major rock stratum had its own particular set of fossils. The fossils found in Cambrian strata were different from those found in Devonian strata which were different again from those in Carboniferous strata, and so on. He got to the point that he could predict which fossils would be found in a rock formation just by looking at the relative position of the formation. Or vice versa, could tell which period of time a fossil came from just by examining the fossil.

Smith did all his work in England, but his principle has been found to be true globally. So index fossils (those which are found only in one particular period) are a key to relative dating of sedimentary rock.

A third method of relative dating relies on estimating the time it takes to build up certain types of rock or to erode it. We can measure, for example, how long it takes coral to build up a reef. So when we find formations of limestone made by coral, we can estimate how long it took to form. Similarly, we can measure how long it takes for a river to dig a channel into its streambed. And so estimate how long it took for a canyon to form. This method has to be used with care, as some processes (like those above) take a long time, but some can be rapid. As you continue to study geology you will learn how to distinguish between the slow and the rapid processes.

Dates can also be derived from measuring cyclical processes, such as annual snow accumulation (ice cores) annual varves, annual tree rings.

I believe paleomagnetism may be another indication of date, but I don't know for sure.


I expect a professional could also name others and give more precise detail on these.

 

[Codeman]

"This method has to be used with care, as some processes (like those above) take a long time, but some can be rapid"

Is it possible for any of those processes to speed up, or slow down? Could we even really know if they could? I think that it was talking about the age of the ocean floor at it's oldest point, along the eastern coast of the americas and east of the phillipines in the pacific. I just wondered if at somepoint during history the process of that hapening (along with other things I suppose) could have sped up, or slowed down, or both, at any point. From what I can tell, the estimates on the age of the oceanic crust in these areas are based on the present rate of tectonic plate movement, which I figure could have changed with time.

I am hoping to find a list of say 50+ methods and thier extimated measurements to do a comparison.
thanx
Codeman

 

[Aeschylus]

"This method has to be used with care, as some processes (like those above) take a long time, but some can be rapid"

Is it possible for any of those processes to speed up, or slow down? Could we even really know if they could? I think that it was talking about the age of the ocean floor at it's oldest point, along the eastern coast of the americas and east of the phillipines in the pacific. I just wondered if at somepoint during history the process of that hapening (along with other things I suppose) could have sped up, or slowed down, or both, at any point. From what I can tell, the estimates on the age of the oceanic crust in these areas are based on the present rate of tectonic plate movement, which I figure could have changed with time.

I am hoping to find a list of say 50+ methods and thier extimated measurements to do a comparison.
thanx
Codeman

It's not possible under natural conditions on the Earth.

 

[gluadys]

"This method has to be used with care, as some processes (like those above) take a long time, but some can be rapid"

Is it possible for any of those processes to speed up, or slow down? Could we even really know if they could? I think that it was talking about the age of the ocean floor at it's oldest point, along the eastern coast of the americas and east of the phillipines in the pacific. I just wondered if at somepoint during history the process of that hapening (along with other things I suppose) could have sped up, or slowed down, or both, at any point. From what I can tell, the estimates on the age of the oceanic crust in these areas are based on the present rate of tectonic plate movement, which I figure could have changed with time.

I am hoping to find a list of say 50+ methods and thier extimated measurements to do a comparison.
thanx
Codeman

Well even today, tectonic plates don't all move at precisely the same speed all the time.

But the extremely rapid plate movement envisaged by some creationist models is not possible. The most "rapid" of plate movements is still so incredibly slow on the scale of a human lifetime, that the difference between a "rapid" and a "slow" plate movement is hardly worth taking notice of.

As an analogy consider when it would be relevant to take into consideration a difference that amounted to less than a hundredth of a second in a century.

The same sort of thing applies to differences in the speed of light. Yes, under certain conditions the speed of light can be different. But in the overall scheme of things, that difference is so slight and so rare it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. To all intents and purposes we can rely on the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum to measure how long it took the light of distant stars and galaxies to reach earth (and therefore the minimum age of the star or galaxy). Same goes for the constancy of radio-active decay rates.

As far as other geological processes go, it is worthwhile remembering that from a theological point of view, God has promised a consistency in nature we can rely on---summer and winter, seedtime and harvest, the pattern of growth, etc. This is what the concept of geological uniformity really refers to. Not that geological processes in themselves are always uniform, but that the same processes, whether gradual or sudden, will consistently yield the same results. So that we can transfer knowledge gained from one study to study of similar geological formations. So knowing the present rate at which certain processes (such as the precipitation of limestone from sea-water) occur, gives us confidence in measuring how long it took for a stratum of limestone to form in the past. Because, unless there are indications of an unusual process, we have no basis for assuming a different time scale.

You might be interested in this thread on the consistency of dating by radiometry and plate tectonics.

 

[Vance]

Here is some good information about the age of the earth, the method of dating and even the arguments presented for a young earth (with responses).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

 

[pressingon]

Just to present information about the young earth viewpoint from a YEC site, rather than an evolutionist's site (not to imply that the site Vance listed is dishonest, but rather just that more complete arguments from the young earth viewpoint are presented at their own site):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

Don't accept any of the information found on this, or other sites, as gospel on the topic. Research the topic fully, then draw conclusions. Do as Paul encourages us, in 1 Thessalonians 5:21: "Test everything. Hold on to the good."

May God guide you in your search for answers.

 

[Vance]

I fully agree that all the information should be researched before a personal conclusion is reached. This is actually why I will occasionally link to Talk Origins. Not only do they present the standard scientific approach, they will almost always present what the young earth creationists say on the point as well (and the page I linked is a very good example of this). Of course, they do go on and explain why they think the YEC position is incorrect, which is also valuable even to YEC's so they know how their arguments are being countered.

One unfortunate trend I have seen on this forum over the last year or so is that the TE's are MUCH more likely to have reviewed all the available material, both YEC and non-YEC, while the YEC's have usually limited themselves to YEC sources. While this is not always true, it is true SO often that I feel justified in making this generalization.

 

[In Christ Forever]

Actually the Earth is 4500 million (aka 4.5 billion) years old, so either your geology text is way out of date or it is referring to a specific geological feature that is only 200 million years old.

If this calculation is right, the earth would be about 334,800,000 yrs old[give or take a few million years]. Since each day he lived would be eqivalet to a "1000yrs" symbolically. I took this example only as Adam was the first created man of the bible.
I didn't add in the creation days, but just for sake of simplicity. Also, Genesis appears to imply that the "heavens and earth" were created on the World. And yes, I do believe in God the Almighty, creator of all things and His Son Jesus Christ, who was born of God and died and resurrected and the Holy Spirit of God dwelling in those who believe unto His Son.



genesis 5:5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. 930yrs old
2 Peter 3:8With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

930 years x 360days = 334,800 days

334,800 days x 1000yrs = 334,800,000 yrs

or another way.

930 yrs would be 70 years short of a 1000 years, which of course would be a negative number, and I won't even calculate that one. Gotta love that number "70".

1 corin 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them,] because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is [rightly] judged by no one. 16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[Tachocline]

Huh?

 

[herev]

If this calculation is right, the earth would be about 334,800,000 yrs old[give or take a few million years]. Since each day he lived would be eqivalet to a "1000yrs" symbolically. I took this example only as Adam was the first created man of the bible.
I didn't add in the creation days, but just for sake of simplicity. Also, Genesis appears to imply that the "heavens and earth" were created on the World. And yes, I do believe in God the Almighty, creator of all things and His Son Jesus Christ, who was born of God and died and resurrected and the Holy Spirit of God dwelling in those who believe unto His Son.



genesis 5:5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. 930yrs old
2 Peter 3:8With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

930 years x 360days = 334,800 days

334,800 days x 1000yrs = 334,800,000 yrs

or another way.

930 yrs would be 70 years short of a 1000 years, which of course would be a negative number, and I won't even calculate that one. Gotta love that number "70".

1 corin 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them,] because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is [rightly] judged by no one. 16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Could you explain your point? and your reasoning. I'm not sure how calculating Adam's age based on 1 day equaling 1000 years gives us the age of the earth?

Please help

 

[In Christ Forever]

Actually the Earth is 4500 million (aka 4.5 billion) years old, so either your geology text is way out of date or it is referring to a specific geological feature that is only 200 million years old.

genesis 5:5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. 930yrs old
2 Peter 3:8With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

930 years x 360days = 334,800 days

334,800 days x 1000yrs = 334,800,000 yrs

or another way.

930 yrs would be 70 years short of a 1000 years, which of course would be a negative number, and I won't even calculate that one. Gotta love that number "70".

Could you explain your point? and your reasoning. I'm not sure how calculating Adam's age based on 1 day equaling 1000 years gives us the age of the earth?

Please help

Nope. Fraid I can't help you with that brother.
I was just showing how both of the others could be wrong in their calculations Just thought I would throw in my 2 cents worth. Peace.

acts 1:5"for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" 7 And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." 9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel,

 

[herev]

Nope. Fraid I can't help you with that brother.
I was just showing how both of the others could be wrong in their calculations Just thought I would throw in my 2 cents worth. Peace.

acts 1:5"for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" 7 And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." 9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel,

OK, I promise, I'm not looking for a fight or anything--I just don't understand your post--if you can't help with it, who can?

 

[In Christ Forever]

OK, I promise, I'm not looking for a fight or anything--I just don't understand your post--if you can't help with it, who can?

So do you believe in God, His Son and the Holy Spirit? Do you believe Christ died on the cross, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven?. Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant Words of God, written by man through the Spirit of God Himself?

1 corin 2:9 But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him." 10 But God has revealed [them] to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

 

[Codeman]

ok...new thoughts- What do you think about the model of creationism verses evolution concerning the yec and old earth theories? ( I am talking about the two graphs side by side- the evo one implicating that the universe is evolving better and better[/], and the other that the earth is getting tired.) I think the creationism model make perfect sense, just from making some quick ovservations on common things.

 

[Vance]

Odd how so many of us Bible-believing, Spirit-led Christians still have hugely divergent views on almost every aspect of Christianity, including (but definitely not limited to) origins. I feel very confident, for example, that I am led by the Spirit when studying the Scripture, and I believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are not meant to be read literally. And another Spirit-led Christian will believe that the Spirit is leading him to a belief that it should be read literally.

Could it be, then, that the Spirit is allowing us to be fully at peace with these differing interpretations because it makes no difference to the ultimate message of God's Word - the Salvation message - which interpretation is used?

 

[Vance]

ok...new thoughts- What do you think about the model of creationism verses evolution concerning the yec and old earth theories? ( I am talking about the two graphs side by side- the evo one implicating that the universe is evolving better and better[/], and the other that the earth is getting tired.) I think the creationism model make perfect sense, just from making some quick ovservations on common things.

Please, please read about evolution before discussing it. Where did you read that the scientific theory of evolution says that things are getting better and better?

Assuming it was a Creationist source, since they are the only ones that make such nonsensical assertions:

Honestly, would you suggest someone learn about Christianity from an atheist source? Of course not. Then why would you think that you will get a correct understanding of evolution from a Creationist source?

 

[Codeman]

um...I didn't have to read it, this theory of things evolving into better organisms, etc. has been taught to me my entire highschool and college life.