How old is the earth?

[busterdog]

Any Dilbert fans out there?

Incredulous Ed - No matter what questions\ you ask him, he'll react as if you're inventing words. [5/28+/01]

 

[atomweaver]

I'd say if you had the same evidence in every lake examined you'd have something but according to what I just read on the internet this is not the case, for El Nino or the 11 year sunspot cycle.

Try the primary literature, instead of general internet readings;

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985AuJPh..38.1027W

http://search.datapages.com/data/doi/10.1306/D4267857-2B26-11D7-8648000102C1865D

http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/1/37

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t30430614821782j/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m840063n4qr53230/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v322/n6080/abs/322615a0.html

http://search.datapages.com/data/doi/10.1306/D4267852-2B26-11D7-8648000102C1865D

 

[shernren]

Before we get to any specifics are you aware that bombardment from high energy sources can cause transmutations/fission and even cause some non-radioactive elements to become radioactive? THat some transmutations are naturally occurring but some can be artificially induced by high energy bombardment? If not I suggest you google nuclear chemistry and high energy bombardment and read up on it. After that we can discuss how high energy bombardment can effect a decay rate.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Transmutation and induced fission are not the same as natural decay. But again, why don't you provide me the details? List the major radioactive series used to date rocks and show me which of the intermediates can be produced in situ from naturally occurring precursors via the naturally occurring radiation. Some discussion of absorption cross-sections would be impressive, though maybe not crucial.

 

[Merlin]

Another confusing dilemma in the Bible (there sure are a lot of them, or maybe I'm just being dumb).

I know of a lot of Christians who actually believe the world is 12,000 years old. I know most Christians do not believe this. Evidence of this of course? Dinosaurs. Never mentioned in the Bible for some reason. But some Christians believe that the dinosaur bones were put on earth to "test us". I find this ludicrous. I dont think God is a practical joker.

On the other hand, I know Christians who DO believe in the theory of evolution. And that the planet is roughly 4,000,000,000 years old. They have used their common sense and used science in CONJUNCION with the bible. This is feel is not wrong. Please remember that the Bible was written by people who still thought the world was flat and that an eclipse was an act of God.

Where do most Christians stand on this? Is the planet a lot younger than we beleive and everything was put here and we were created as humans that did not evolve from chimps? Or are we maybe starting to understand that a lot of Genesis was metaphorical?

Lotsa judgmental presuppositions there.

 

[zon3d]

The Earth is about 6000-10,000 years old according to the genealogies in the Bible.

 

[gluadys]

The Earth is about 6000-10,000 years old according to the genealogies in the Bible.

You mean according to people who believe the genealogies in the Bible are the only legitimate way to calculate the age of the Earth.

The Bible doesn't tell us to use its genealogies in this way.

 

[Dr. Unk]

The Earth is about 6000-10,000 years old according to the genealogies in the Bible.

The Earth is about 4,540,000,000 years old according to radiometric dating and cosmology.

 

[DominusIesus]

Another confusing dilemma in the Bible

It is not confusing once you start asking the correct questions. The Bible does not tell us how or when God made heaven and earth hence to ask it such questions is inevitably going to lead to confusion. What it does tell us is that God created heaven and earth.

 

[DominusIesus]

The Earth is about 4,540,000,000 years old according to radiometric dating and cosmology.

There are huge problems with radiometric dating owing to the underlying assumptions that underpin it and which are in turn unprovable. We should be open and honest about the limitation of science and the scientific method.

 

[gluadys]

There are huge problems with radiometric dating owing to the underlying assumptions that underpin it and which are in turn unprovable. We should be open and honest about the limitation of science and the scientific method.

A statement often repeated by those who know virtually nothing about radiometric dating. Here is the perspective of one who does know:


http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/wiens2002.pdf

 

[DominusIesus]

What he does not explain is the underlying presuppositions that are underpinning the techniques. Scientists themselves are aware of the limitations of their methods. They cannot prove the date of the earth, they can merely conjecture, a guestimate if you will. Is the age of the earth billions of years old? Possibly. Is the age of the earth tens of thousands of years old. Possibly. We do not know for sure.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What he does not explain is the underlying presuppositions that are underpinning the techniques. Scientists themselves are aware of the limitations of their methods. They cannot prove the date of the earth, they can merely conjecture, a guestimate if you will. Is the age of the earth billions of years old? Possibly. Is the age of the earth tens of thousands of years old. Possibly. We do not know for sure.

We do not know with 100% accuracy, that much is true. But we do more than just guess: the age of the Earth, as accepted by the scientific community, is based upon a rather large variety of independent dating techniques. The age of 4.55 billion years (±~1%) wasn't randomly chosen, it was empirically arrived at. Consult this article for details on how this was achieved.

 

[gluadys]

What he does not explain is the underlying presuppositions that are underpinning the techniques. Scientists themselves are aware of the limitations of their methods. They cannot prove the date of the earth, they can merely conjecture, a guestimate if you will. Is the age of the earth billions of years old? Possibly. Is the age of the earth tens of thousands of years old. Possibly. We do not know for sure.

There are no underlying presuppositions underlying the techniques that are not common to all science.

The alternative presupposition is the Omphalos theory, which is useless scientifically and suspect theologically.

 

[Mallon]

Is the age of the earth billions of years old? Possibly. Is the age of the earth tens of thousands of years old. Possibly. We do not know for sure.

In science, not all outcomes are equally likely, however. Sure, it's possible that the earth is only several thousand years old. It is also possible that if I let go of a ball here on earth, it will fall up. But neither of these outcomes are likely, given the overwhelming amount of evidence in opposition to these two possibilities. Just because two things are possible doesn't make them equally likely.

 

[DominusIesus]

We do not know with 100% accuracy, that much is true. But we do more than just guess: the age of the Earth, as accepted by the scientific community, is based upon a rather large variety of independent dating techniques. The age of 4.55 billion years (±~1%) wasn't randomly chosen, it was empirically arrived at.

Let's assume that the dating methods are flawless and the earth is exactly 4.55 billion years old. What real relevance is that in the discussion between creationism and theistic evolution (other than it rules out YEC which I don't agree with anyway)?

 

[gluadys]

Let's assume that the dating methods are flawless and the earth is exactly 4.55 billion years old. What real relevance is that in the discussion between creationism and theistic evolution (other than it rules out YEC which I don't agree with anyway)?

That's fine then. If you have no problem with the age of the earth, that is one less thing we disagree on.

So if you have problems with evolution, it must be for some other reason. So, let me ask you a question.

What if it were demonstrated to your satisfaction that evolution, including the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, is a fact of nature, how would you deal with that theologically?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Let's assume that the dating methods are flawless and the earth is exactly 4.55 billion years old. What real relevance is that in the discussion between creationism and theistic evolution (other than it rules out YEC which I don't agree with anyway)?

You answer your own question: to rule out YEC, and to establish the age of the Earth (which is, after all, the title of this thread).

But in any case, I was trying to clarify that the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth is more rigorous than mere conjecture.

 

[DominusIesus]

What if it were demonstrated to your satisfaction that evolution, including the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, is a fact of nature, how would you deal with that theologically?

This is where the problems really begin, in that whilst micoevolution can be proven scientifically macroevolution can't. As I noted previously, the Bible does not tell us how or when God made heaven and earth hence to ask it such questions is inevitably going to lead to confusion. What it does tell us is that God created heaven and earth and all that therein is.

Incidently, have you read Mark Futato's “Because It Had Not Rained: A Study of Gen. 2:5-7 with Implications for Gen. 2:4-25 and Gen 1:1-2:3,” Published in the WestminsterTheological Journal?

Look out for Hasel's “The Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient near Eastern Parallels” and Hyers' “The Narrative Form of Genesis 1: Cosmongonic, Yes: Scientific No”.

All are freely available online.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[gluadys]

This is where the problems really begin, in that whilst micoevolution can be proven scientifically macroevolution can't.

That is not true. You are probably confusing macroevolution either with common descent or with some non-scientific notion of macroevolution. In any case, it doesn't answer the question. But if you want to know more, feel free to ask.

As I noted previously, the Bible does not tell us how or when God made heaven and earth hence to ask it such questions is inevitably going to lead to confusion. What it does tell us is that God created heaven and earth and all that therein is.

Incidently, have you read Mark Futato's “Because It Had Not Rained: A Study of Gen. 2:5-7 with Implications for Gen. 2:4-25 and Gen 1:1-2:3,” Published in the WestminsterTheological Journal?

Look out for Hasel's “The Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient near Eastern Parallels” and Hyers' “The Narrative Form of Genesis 1: Cosmongonic, Yes: Scientific No”.

All are freely available online.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

I have read "Because it had not rained". I'll check for the others. Have you seen this by the Australian evangelical theologian, John Dickson?

http://publicchristianity.org/genesgenre1.html

 

[Dr. Unk]

This is where the problems really begin, in that whilst micoevolution can be proven scientifically macroevolution can't.

Firstly, marcoevolution isn't a scientific term - it's only used by creationists. Also, macroevolution is simply many microevolutions over a vast amount of time.
Secondly, there is overwhelming evidence supporting universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses, fusion of human chromosome #2, embryology, ativisms and transitional fossils to name a few. YouTube is a brilliant way of educating yourself about these things, so I suggest you search for DonExodus2, potholer54 and AronRa and reconsider whether macroevolution can be proven.