Forgive my ignorance...

dukeofhazzard · Sep 20, 2007

And for posting this on the debate board instead of the OT board, but there doesn't seem to be much traffic there these days.

When scientists say that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years -- what are they basing that on? Are they basing it on what they can observe? (for example, a star is 13.7 billion light years away, therefore the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old) Or on something else?

Also, is the age of the earth based on the age of the rocks? Or are there other factors involved?

I'm perfectly cool with the ages they've put forth, but the other day my mom was wondering how they can say with such certainty how old everything was, and I wasn't able to give her an explanation that was satisfying to her.

CACTUSJACKmankin · Sep 20, 2007

dukeofhazzard said:
Also, is the age of the earth based on the age of the rocks? Or are there other factors involved?

I can answer the earth one. the earth is older than any indigenous rock and no older than the solar system. The earth rocks date 4 bya at the oldest as does the moon, and meteorites date 4.6 bya at the oldest.

RichardT · Sep 20, 2007

dukeofhazzard said:
And for posting this on the debate board instead of the OT board, but there doesn't seem to be much traffic there these days.

When scientists say that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years -- what are they basing that on? Are they basing it on what they can observe? (for example, a star is 13.7 billion light years away, therefore the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old) Or on something else?

Also, is the age of the earth based on the age of the rocks? Or are there other factors involved?

I'm perfectly cool with the ages they've put forth, but the other day my mom was wondering how they can say with such certainty how old everything was, and I wasn't able to give her an explanation that was satisfying to her.

There are some factors that evolutionists consider in order to date the universe. There is the age of the earth (and how long it could have for the solar system to form, etc), and star light distances.

http://www.trueorigin.org/old_earth_evo_heart.asp

TheOutsider · Sep 20, 2007

They use the background microwave radiation from the Big Bang to measure the age of the universe. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
And here is the article on the age of the earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth

Logic_Fault · Sep 20, 2007

dukeofhazzard said:
When scientists say that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years -- what are they basing that on? Are they basing it on what they can observe? (for example, a star is 13.7 billion light years away, therefore the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old) Or on something else?

Microwave background radiation is one method. Until recently I believe it was the most accurate method to determine the age of the universe. However, this article shows how finding Uranium-238 in a distant star has given us the most precise measurement yet (at least as of 2001; there's probably something more current by now) for the age of the universe.

It seems, according to that article, that the universe is 12.5 billion years old, give or take 3 billion years.

There's also a Wikipedia article here about the age of the universe and how it was determined. It appears quite technical though.

Also, is the age of the earth based on the age of the rocks? Or are there other factors involved?

See this page for a number of dating methods to determine the age of the earth. The entire page is pretty good but the dating methods are probably what you're looking for specifically.

And, of course, there's a Wikipedia article about the age of the Earth here.

I'm perfectly cool with the ages they've put forth, but the other day my mom was wondering how they can say with such certainty how old everything was, and I wasn't able to give her an explanation that was satisfying to her.

Hope the links help. If you really need something with more detail I'd probably be able to find it. I just found those with a quick Google search.

EDIT: Seems TheOutsider beat me to the Wikipedia links. That's what I get for not fully reading a thread before posting...

Loudmouth · Sep 20, 2007

dukeofhazzard said:
Also, is the age of the earth based on the age of the rocks? Or are there other factors involved?

Specifically, it is based on the radiometric age of meteorites. The Earth is geologically active which resets the "clocks" in the rocks. Meteorites are thought to have formed early in the life of the Solar system and they are not geologically active so their clocks have never been reset. Also, it is thought that the formation of meteorites occurred at the same time that planet formation began. Dating the meteorites dates the beginning of planet building, i.e. the Earth.

The oldest rock of terrestrial origin are some zircons in Australia that date back to 4.4 billion years (if memory serves). Meteorites date back to 4.55 billion years.

Loudmouth · Sep 20, 2007

RichardT said:
There are some factors that evolutionists consider in order to date the universe.

Evolutionists are biologists. Biologists are not involved in the dating of the universe, or the Earth for that matter. Physicists and astronomers have dated the universe. Geologists have dated the Earth. It helps to use the correct terms.

Pete Harcoff · Sep 20, 2007

Loudmouth said:
Specifically, it is based on the radiometric age of meteorites. The Earth is geologically active which resets the "clocks" in the rocks. Meteorites are thought to have formed early in the life of the Solar system and they are not geologically active so their clocks have never been reset. Also, it is thought that the formation of meteorites occurred at the same time that planet formation began. Dating the meteorites dates the beginning of planet building, i.e. the Earth.

The oldest rock of terrestrial origin are some zircons in Australia that date back to 4.4 billion years (if memory serves). Meteorites date back to 4.55 billion years.

Just to add to this, a seldom talked about (okay, never really) measure of solar age is helioseismology. It's been used on our own Sun resulting in ages of approx 4.6 billion years, virtually in line with radiometric methods used on meteroites/moon rock.

Loudmouth · Sep 20, 2007

Pete Harcoff said:
Just to add to this, a seldom talked about (okay, never really) measure of solar age is helioseismology. It's been used on our own Sun resulting in ages of approx 4.6 billion years, virtually in line with radiometric methods used on meteroites/moon rock.

I hadn't heard of that, thanks.

So we have three independent lines of evidence: zircons on Earth, meteorites from space, and the Sun itself. All three lines of evidence point to the same time period, 4.4-4.6 billion years before present.

RichardT · Sep 20, 2007

Loudmouth said:
Evolutionists are biologists. Biologists are not involved in the dating of the universe, or the Earth for that matter. Physicists and astronomers have dated the universe. Geologists have dated the Earth. It helps to use the correct terms.

Evolutionist = People who "accept" the Theory of Evolution.

monkeypsycho62 · Sep 20, 2007

RichardT said:
Evolutionist = People who "accept" the Theory of Evolution.

But that doesn't mean that all astronomers that believe the universe is billions of years old accept evolution. It would make sense, but it doesn't necessarily have to happen.

When did the term "evolutionist" start to replace "scientist?"

CACTUSJACKmankin · Sep 20, 2007

RichardT said:
Evolutionist = People who "accept" the Theory of Evolution.

earth is 4.6 billion years old = geology + astronomy
has nothing to do with evolution except providing the timescale we see in genetics and the fossil record.

variant · Sep 20, 2007

It seems, according to that article, that the universe is 12.5 billion years old, give or take 3 billion years.

I think it's funny that the universe is a bakers dozen (Billion) years old.

Perhaps the old earth creationists should pick up on this point and surmise that a bakers dozen requires a baker.

Gracchus · Sep 20, 2007

monkeypsycho62 said:
When did the term "evolutionist" start to replace "scientist?"

About the time that the rest of science started to disprove the biblical myths. It would be folly for a creationist to admit that he was attacking all of science. So "evolution" has become the codeword for any science that challenges or disproves biblical myth.

There are two ways to explain why the world is the way it is: Myth and science. Those holding the mythic world view are "conservative", which is to say, they cannot easily process new information. They do not handle change well. Note that not all conservatives are politically conservative, nor financially conservative, nor socially conservative. A conservative thinker is one who finds it difficult or impossible to change their mind even in the face of overwhelming evidence. They are not intellectually adaptable. They are mentally stagnant.

Those holding the scientific view are adaptable, and not so sure of their beliefs. Their minds remain malleable longer, unlike the mythic thinkers whose minds tend to set like concrete at, or even before, puberty.

There are some creationists who are still capable of scientific thought. Exposed to the evidence, they become ex-creationists, or theistic creationists.

I am a bit of a conservative myself in some matters. Still, if some Christian would care to demonstrate to me that it is possible to serve both God and money, I might be constrained to change my mind.

RichardT · Sep 20, 2007

Impossible to mentally adapt? I really don't think it's that hard. But it can sometimes be emotionally depressing.

Inan3 · Sep 20, 2007

Gracchus said:
About the time that the rest of science started to disprove the biblical myths. It would be folly for a creationist to admit that he was attacking all of science. So "evolution" has become the codeword for any science that challenges or disproves biblical myth.

There are two ways to explain why the world is the way it is: Myth and science. Those holding the mythic world view are "conservative", which is to say, they cannot easily process new information. They do not handle change well. Note that not all conservatives are politically conservative, nor financially conservative, nor socially conservative. A conservative thinker is one who finds it difficult or impossible to change their mind even in the face of overwhelming evidence. They are not intellectually adaptable. They are mentally stagnant.

Those holding the scientific view are adaptable, and not so sure of their beliefs. Their minds remain malleable longer, unlike the mythic thinkers whose minds tend to set like concrete at, or even before, puberty.

There are some creationists who are still capable of scientific thought. Exposed to the evidence, they become ex-creationists, or theistic creationists.

I am a bit of a conservative myself in some matters. Still, if some Christian would care to demonstrate to me that it is possible to serve both God and money, I might be constrained to change my mind.

I can show you it's okay to SERVE God and HAVE money but not serve them both. I won't comment on the rest of what you said for obvious reasons.

Inan3 · Sep 20, 2007

variant said:
I think it's funny that the universe is a bakers dozen (Billion) years old.

Perhaps the old earth creationists should pick up on this point and surmise that a bakers dozen requires a baker.

I think it's funny that you think it is.

Inan3 · Sep 20, 2007

CACTUSJACKmankin said:
earth is 4.6 billion years old = geology + astronomy
has nothing to do with evolution except providing the timescale we see in genetics and the fossil record.

And though it really isn't true or proven you accept it because you NEED it for evolution to have some possible credence.

Inan3 · Sep 20, 2007

Logic_Fault said:
It seems, according to that article, that the universe is 12.5 billion years old, give or take 3 billion years.

Whew!! That REALLY insures evolution is true! Good one LF.

Logic_Fault · Sep 20, 2007

Inan3 said:
And though it really isn't true or proven you accept it because you NEED it for evolution to have some possible credence.

Explain how it isn't true.

Forgive my ignorance...

Regular Member

Scientist

Contributor

Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure

Semper Ubi Sub Ubi Ubique

Contributor

Contributor

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Contributor

Contributor

Senior Member

Scientist

Happy Cat

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Veteran Saint

Veteran Saint

Veteran Saint

Veteran Saint

Semper Ubi Sub Ubi Ubique

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency