How Old is the Earth?

[Astrid]

It wasn't created 6,000 years ago.

Fun fact - decay rates aren't dependent on the amount of material present at the time of formation. For instance, the 2.1 billion year old natural nuclear reactor in Gabon was "discovered" when French physicists discovered a minor (.003%) difference in the expected presence of U-235.

Meet Oklo, the Earth’s Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor

Physicist Francis Perrin sat at a nuclearfuel-processing plant down in the south of France, thinking to himself: “This cannot be possible.” It was 1972.

www.iaea.org

Mysterious phenomena are not scientific and cannot be taken seriously by science. The biggest problem with decay rates (apart from the insurmountable heat problem) is if decay rates can fluctuate as wildly as claimed by Creationists, nuclear reactors aren't metaphorical time bombs, but literal ones. If they decay suddenly and significantly changed, it could cause a meltdown.

Since I mentioned the heat problem, the ICR had a team look into radiometric dating and one of their more interesting conclusions was the presence of at least 500,000,000 years worth of radioactive decay in the geologic record. If all that decay happened in 6,000 years the oceans would have boiled, If it all happened during the Flood year, when most Creationists think the majority of the geologic record formed, it would have melted the crust of the earth.

Worth noting - radioactive decay isn't the only heat problem.

1. Science doesn't do proof. Proof is the purview of mathematics. Science deals in evidence.
2. You are misusing the term theory. It doesn't mean hunch or guess in a scientific context.
3. The provisional verbiage used by science is correct and necessary as all scientific conclusions are provisional. Even seemingly unassailable ones like heliocentrism or gravity making objects attract.

You missed #2a. Theories are based on fats

 

[son of Hilkiah]

What I didn't expect is how many people in the video linked below didn't know how old the earth is. And how far off they were. And I'm wondering how wide spread that lack of knowledge about the earth's age is. I don't know if that picture is due to creative editing or actual lack of knowledge.

I believe the universe is millions and billions of solar years old but man has been on the planet for around 6000 years.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Mysterious phenomena are not scientific and cannot be taken seriously by science. The biggest problem with decay rates (apart from the insurmountable heat problem) is if decay rates can fluctuate as wildly as claimed by Creationists, nuclear reactors aren't metaphorical time bombs, but literal ones. If they decay suddenly and significantly changed, it could cause a meltdown.

You’re not getting my point, without knowing the state of the material when it was created you can’t determine how old it is. You’re automatically assuming there was no decay when it was created.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Fun fact - decay rates aren't dependent on the amount of material present at the time of formation. For instance, the 2.1 billion year old natural nuclear reactor in Gabon was "discovered" when French physicists discovered a minor (.003%) difference in the expected presence of U-235.

That’s really fascinating but how much U-235 was there 6000 years ago when it was created?

 

[BNR32FAN]

1. Science doesn't do proof. Proof is the purview of mathematics. Science deals in evidence.
2. You are misusing the term theory. It doesn't mean hunch or guess in a scientific context.
3. The provisional verbiage used by science is correct and necessary as all scientific conclusions are provisional. Even seemingly unassailable ones like heliocentrism or gravity making objects attract.

I know what a theory is, it’s an educated guess based on the information we have, that’s why they’re subject to change as new information is discovered.

 

[Larniavc]

Is it evidence? Sure, is it proof, no. It seems that people are overlooking the words “theory” “estimate” and “prediction” and are trying to pass these theories as proof rather than evidence.

Science does not deal in proof. But you know that.

 

[dlamberth]

I believe the universe is millions and billions of solar years old but man has been on the planet for around 6000 years.

What do you do with the physical evidence that clearly points towards Human Beings being here lot longer than 6000 years?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ho do 6ou know that the M8d Atlantic data shows what you believe it does?

Has anyone documented a polarity reverse of the magnetic field?

Ask the questions.

The polarity reversals are recorded in the floor of the Atlantic Ocean. Back and forth it goes as you measure the magnetization of the sea floor moving from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge towards either coast. That *is* the documentation.

 

[USincognito]

You missed #4. Theories are based on facts

Yes they are. I'm acutely aware of that fact and was pointing that out to my interlocutor.

 

[USincognito]

I know what a theory is, it’s an educated guess based on the information we have,

No. This reply literally tells all of the scientifically literate members that you don't know what it means. Theories are not educated guesses. Hypotheses can be described as such, but theories are explanations.

that’s why they’re subject to change as new information is discovered.

As I mentioned, every single proposition and conclusion in science is provisional and subject to future revision or falsification. I will aver that nothing will ever show heliocentrism to be false, but science must allow for there somehow being data showing it be incorrect.b

 

[USincognito]

You’re not getting my point, without knowing the state of the material when it was created you can’t determine how old it is. You’re automatically assuming there was no decay when it was created.

Again, imaginary "states of" are irrelevant to the discussion. Every single observation since the discovery of radioactive decay has shown decay rates to be consistent over time. No one is saying that there was "no decay" when the isotope was "created" so that's an irrelevant objection.

You need to show that accelerated decay happened and somehow didn't incinerate the surface of the earth.

That’s really fascinating but how much U-235 was there 6000 years ago when it was created?

The U-235 wasn't created 6,000 years ago and it would be awesome if you'd actually read the link I provided.

 

[Halbhh]

What I didn't expect is how many people in the video linked below didn't know how old the earth is. And how far off they were. And I'm wondering how wide spread that lack of knowledge about the earth's age is. I don't know if that picture is due to creative editing or actual lack of knowledge.

I did also just get curious and finally watch the video since it's under 3 minutes, and it did confirm my guess that most people don't know the well established estimate is ~ 4.55bn yrs +/- 1%, based on radioactive decay dating of meteorites.

(Here's an excellent short summary where that comes from for those interested: " meteorites, and therefore the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago. The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively. Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites" -- Geologic Time: Age of the Earth: )

I did think more than 2 people would say 4.something bn though out of 20. The common answer 'millions' was though what we should expect. I think you'd get that on a city sidewalk in most places (but not near a university).

 

[Astrid]

Yes they are. I'm acutely aware of that fact and was pointing that out to my interlocutor.

Yep. And my edit to make it point " 2a" failed.

Just emphasis. Circles and arrows to point
out the well known to the slow learners.

 

[dwb001]

I did also just get curious and finally watch the video since it's under 3 minutes, and it did confirm my guess that most people don't know the well established estimate is ~ 4.55bn yrs +/- 1%, based on radioactive decay dating of meteorites.

(Here's an excellent short summary where that comes from for those interested: " meteorites, and therefore the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago. The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively. Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites" -- Geologic Time: Age of the Earth: )

I did think more than 2 people would say 4.something bn though out of 20. The common answer 'millions' was though what we should expect. I think you'd get that on a city sidewalk in most places (but not near a university).

6k years.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Hypotheses can be described as such, but theories are explanations.

Uhuh so when you base a theory on estimates, predictions, and incomplete data that’s not a guess? C’mon if you can’t be polite in the discussion the least you could do is be honest about it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Again, imaginary "states of" are irrelevant to the discussion. Every single observation since the discovery of radioactive decay has shown decay rates to be consistent over time. No one is saying that there was "no decay" when the isotope was "created" so that's an irrelevant objection.

So then the amount of decay that was present in an object at the time is was created wouldn’t affect its predicted age?

 

[BNR32FAN]

You need to show that accelerated decay happened and somehow didn't incinerate the surface of the earth.

I’m not saying that it decayed at an accelerated rate, I’m saying it could’ve been created with an unknown amount of decay already present in it. I completely understand your position, you don’t see it that way and that’s fine but if I were to be forced to see it your way on this subject I would also have to apply that same logic to Adam’s creation. Adam was created as an adult not an embryo, a fetus, or even a newborn child. So according to your logic I would then need to explain how Adam was created as an adult since we’ve never encountered anyone being born as an adult much less created as an adult from mere dust. My only point here is that because science does not have the information on these materials from 6000 years ago, they can estimate and predict all they want but they can’t actually prove how old it is no matter what method they’re using.

 

[Pommer]

del

We can delete our own posts now, please for to see the “delete” tab under your own misses.

 

[Pommer]

I believe the universe is millions and billions of solar years old but man has been on the planet for around 6000 years.

How do you mean “man”?
Where there bipedal primates with fairly large brains that God imbued with “humanness”; or did the Almighty create a new species that just happened to share large chunks of DNA with other primates?

 

[Astrophile]

And my point went right over your head, didn't it?

Yes it did. So what was your point?

Did you see dlamberth's post that I was replying to?

Yes.

I asked a rhetorical question to make a point.

So what was the point that you were making?