How old is the Earth?!

It would appear that the majority of people are of the opinion that the Earth is billions of years old, and dates back to a supposed "big bang". An alternative idea based on working through the Biblical geneologies would suggest a figure around just six thousand years. It would seem that the only reason for not accepting the latter figure is the need to accommodate evolution? Before the end of the 18th century everyone happily accepted the Biblical timeframe. I am not aware of any evidence against such a young Earth. Anyone care to "enlighten" me?! lol

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregP618:
It would appear that the majority of people are of the opinion that the Earth is billions of years old, and dates back to a supposed "big bang".

---

If you think that the Earth dates back to the big bang you are a bit of an odd duck...The UNIVERSE dates back to the big bang (about 10-12 billion years ago) the Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago....See the difference?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
If you think that the Earth dates back to the big bang you are a bit of an odd duck...

​

The UNIVERSE dates back to the big bang (about 10-12 billion years ago) the Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago....

​

See the difference?

---

Ok, fair enough, I should've phrased the question better, but that avoids the original question! I don't believe that EITHER of them is anywhere near as old as that. I've already given allegance to the viewpoint that the universe/Earth is much younger than is generally accepted.As for the big bang theory, may I quote an article from Nature (10th August 1989) - "Apart from being philosophically unacceptable, the Big Bang is an over-simple view of how the universe began, and is unlikely to survive the decade ahead...In all respects save that of convenience, this view of the origin of the universe is thoroughly unsatisfactory. It is an effect whose cause cannot be identified, or even discussed."I think it's true to say that whilst many people still hold true to the big bang theory, they are the people that haven't really looked into the evidence. No leading scientist would hold allegance to this theory today. Remember that people once thought the Earth was flat!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregP618:
Ok, fair enough, I should've phrased the question better, but that avoids the original question! ...
As for the big bang theory, may I quote an article from Nature (10th August 1989) - "Apart from being philosophically unacceptable, the Big Bang is an over-simple view of how the universe began, and is unlikely to survive the decade ahead...

---

You may indeed quote it, but you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself! Article from 1989 - "unlikely to survive the decade ahead" - quoting in 2002 - see where I am going?

quote:

---

I think it's true to say that whilst many people still hold true to the big bang theory, they are the people that haven't really looked into the evidence. No leading scientist would hold allegance to this theory today.

---

Bloody hell are you serious?
Perhaps you would like to follow this link, to the site of the Cambridge Cosmology Group.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.htmlHere you will find that the Big Bang is still the dominant theory -with its many admitted faults. You will also find that the site is hosted by one of the world's leading universities in a department and faculty renowned for its work.Or you could follow this link to Nasa's site where you will similarly learn about the general acceptance of the theory:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.htmlOf course Nasa scientists perhaps don't count as "leading?"Oh but wait - I stand corrected - here indeed is a link thrusting the hopeless theory into the dustbin of history and firmly closing the lid:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htmThat leading cosmologist and renaissance man Duane Gish has compiled a devastating expose of the theory. If only someone had told those chumps at Cambridge and Nasa!Now do your duty Greg - write to Steven Hawking (concerning his lecture at http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html) and tell him he's not a leading scientist. Here's his email: S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.ukBut look - it's the same department as that pesky lot who have a whole web site devoted the Big Bang!I've lost all faith in science now. Please Greg, tell me who is a leading scientist so I can read his words with awe.

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-19-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregP618:
Ok, fair enough, I should've phrased the question better, but that avoids the original question! I don't believe that EITHER of them is anywhere near as old as that. I've already given allegance to the viewpoint that the universe/Earth is much younger than is generally accepted.

​

As for the big bang theory, may I quote an article from Nature (10th August 1989) - "Apart from being philosophically unacceptable, the Big Bang is an over-simple view of how the universe began, and is unlikely to survive the decade ahead...In all respects save that of convenience, this view of the origin of the universe is thoroughly unsatisfactory. It is an effect whose cause cannot be identified, or even discussed."

​

I think it's true to say that whilst many people still hold true to the big bang theory, they are the people that haven't really looked into the evidence. No leading scientist would hold allegance to this theory today. Remember that people once thought the Earth was flat!!

---

There is lots of evidence to reject a young earth. In the 1700's-1800's people thought the earth was young 6000-10000 years and that all fossils had been laid down during the Noachian flood. The people who held that position (Christian fundamentalists) thought they would verify it through observation. Like all good scientists, they looked at the rock record and found it did not support either the flood or a young earth. In fact, all the evidence pointed to an old earth and no flood. It was these fundamentalist Christian scholars who overturned the untenable view of a young earth. It was not atheistic scholars. Some of the evidence they looked at were glacial deposits, the order of the fossil record, the presence of paleosols within sedimentary sequences, the presence of desert deposits within what they previously thought were all flood deposits. Today, we can study radioactive elements. I am not necessarily talking about radiometric dating so stay with me. We know that some isotopes have short half lives (such as 26Al). If the Universe and the earth were young, we should be able to find these short-lived isotopes, but all we can find are their daughter products. On the other hand, the relative abundances of 235U, 238U and their daughter products are exactly what we would expect for a 4.5 Ga old earth.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Bloody hell are you serious?

---

Uhh Mr P there is a LOL at the end of his original post, I think he`s playing devils advocate.......May be wrong though but how many YECs do you know from the UK?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Uhh Mr P there is a LOL at the end of his original post, I think he`s playing devils advocate.......

​

May be wrong though but how many YECs do you know from the UK?

---

I hope he was joking - I would sooner sound off needlessly than believe there was someone so ignorant of science out there.Anyway, it gave me a reason to post up Stephen Hawking's email address. I'm kinda wickedly hoping Brad McFall gets into conversation with him!

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-19-2002]

quote:

---

Anyway, it gave me a reason to post up Stephen Hawking's email address. I'm kinda wickedly hoping Brad McFall gets into conversation with him!

---

ROTFLMAO!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregP618:
It would appear that the majority of people are of the opinion that the Earth is billions of years old, and dates back to a supposed "big bang". An alternative idea based on working through the Biblical geneologies would suggest a figure around just six thousand years. It would seem that the only reason for not accepting the latter figure is the need to accommodate evolution? Before the end of the 18th century everyone happily accepted the Biblical timeframe. I am not aware of any evidence against such a young Earth. Anyone care to "enlighten" me?! lol

---

There's a thread in the Great Debate about this ... and lot's of links
to evidence AGAINST a young earth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Uhh Mr P there is a LOL at the end of his original post, I think he`s playing devils advocate.......

​

May be wrong though but how many YECs do you know from the UK?

---

I am indeed attempting to play Devil's advocate. I was kinda hoping that a few ardent defenders of a young Earth would get involved to make things more interesting. Saying that tho', I was interested by the links posted by Mr P (message 4). May I remind everyone that both sides of the coin are described as THEORIES, and therefore not completely proven. I could draw attention to the Cambridge Cosmology Group... http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_problems.htmlOr the fact that NASA admit the theory to be incomplete in accounting for all observed data... http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bblimit.htmlNow whilst Creation, Evolution, and the Big Bang, are regarded as THEORIES, there are some things that are regarded as LAWS. These are immutable, tested, and are not subject to arbitary change. The law of gravity for example, or the laws of thermodynamics, or cause and effect.Here it gets interesting, the 1st law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it follows that nothing in the universe is capable of bringing the universe into being. This leaves two options (I think!), (A) The universe has always existed (and I doubt I'll ever find someone who believes that!), or (B) It was brought into being by something OUTSIDE of itself (aka God?!). The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that in an isolated system, spontaneous processes lead to a decrease in order, so if the Earth is infinitely old we would not be able to find any sort of order....It follows then that the universe had a beginning, and that God was responsible for that beginning....lol

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GregP618:
[B]JM: This is incorrect. Evolution is both a fact (observable undebatable) and a theory. We observe the genetic changes through time (fact). We theorize about what might cause the changes. The Big Bang is indeed, a theoretical approach towards explaining the observations within the Universe. However, creation is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word. The is no comprehensive a testable theory for special creation. It is solely a religious approach to explain the unexplainable. Be careful tossing the word 'theory' around in a happenstance manner. Science has a very rigorous distinction between theories, hypotheses and random musings.CheersJoe Meert

But Greg, the *law* of gravity a la Newton was modified/replaced by Einstein's *theory* of relativity. Not even scientific laws are immutable. Another example is that the law of conservation of matter was amended from "matter cannot be destroyed or created" to "matter cannot be destroyed or created but it can be changed into energy and energy can be changed into matter" (more of Einstein's meddling). We have to realize that even the "best" principles of science are not immutable, and even a concept as central to our everyday lives as gravity is not entirely understood. Hence it is not surprising that the current incarnation of the Big Bang Theory is not complete enough to explain every observation. Few theories by themselves are. In fact, NASA recently sunk a couple hundred million dollars into a deep space cosmic microwave background radiation antisoptery(sp?) probe to map irregularities in the CBR and hopefully make some finer adjustments to the BBT. That's the same reason astrophysicists are lining up to go to a place as warm and pleasant as Antarctica to make similar astronomical observations, that the BBT model of the early universe is (like most theories) tentative and incomplete, and the need for further research opens many fascinating opportunities for revision and more questions to be answered. The BB itself is not the only prize in this research, but there are possibly many fundamental questions about the nature of matter itself (string theory; why the universe is biased towards baryonic matter rather than antimatter; high energy unification of the fundamental forces of physics) that may have light shed on them by early-universe observations. In short, incomplete theories lead to discoveries, and sometimes, different theories that are superior to their predecessors.

There are numerous methods of dating which don't support the billions of years hypothesis.Take the uranium-lead dating method. This method relies on the ratio of uranium-radiogenic lead for dating. However, in almost all deposits of uranium, there is also thorium, which produces radiogenic lead. Also, during the decay of uranium-lead, it produces helium. There is simply not enough helium in the atmosphere (less than 1/2000ths of the required amount) that is expected from this. You might say that it escapes the atmosphere. This is not true. Helium is quite a lot heavier than hydrogen and does not escape in significant amounts. Indeed, with the earth circulating around the solar system it picks up intersolar gas/dust, increasing the amount of helium on the earth.Now take carbon dating. Did you know that C14 is currently being created 25% faster than it is destroyed? That the level of C14 is not in equilibrium? If you take the figures and take it back to a time where there is no C14, it gives the date of the earth as

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
There are numerous methods of dating which don't support the billions of years hypothesis.

---

Yeah. I tried to use my desk calendar to date the earth the other day. Didn't give me even a decade. (Do you get my point here, or is it too subtle?).I will leave it to others to pick over this carcass of old, discredited creationist arguments. Suffice it to say that these are problems invented by and for creationists, and they have been dispensed with by scientists perviously. No one takes these arguments seriously any more, including some of our creationists.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blitz77:
[b]Take the uranium-lead dating method. This method relies on the ratio of uranium-radiogenic lead for dating. However, in almost all deposits of uranium, there is also thorium, which produces radiogenic lead. Also, during the decay of uranium-lead, it produces helium. There is simply not enough helium in the atmosphere (less than 1/2000ths of the required amount) that is expected from this. You might say that it escapes the atmosphere. This is not true. Helium is quite a lot heavier than hydrogen and does not escape in significant amounts. Indeed, with the earth circulating around the solar system it picks up intersolar gas/dust, increasing the amount of helium on the earth.[/QUOTE][/b]1) All of the dating methods have problems, but they do all give the same dates within reasonable margins of error. Its like trying to figure out what time it is when all of the clocks in the house are off by a few minutes one way or the other.2) http://www.holysmoke.org/icr6dud.htm

quote:

---

Now take carbon dating. Did you know that C14 is currently being created 25% faster than it is destroyed?

---

Actually, it is being released rapidly via the burning of fossil fuels. Nuclear tests in the fifties added a big chunk as well. So c-14 isn't used on anything very recent.

quote:

---

That the level of C14 is not in equilibrium? If you take the figures and take it back to a time where there is no C14, it gives the date of the earth as <10 000 yrs.

---

Fossil fuels have been used extensively for two or three hundred years at most. It is inaccurate to extrapolate backwards from today, without accounting for that.

quote:

---

Now take solar dust. If the universe really is billions of years old, at the rate dust falls on planets and solar bodies, the moon should be in dozens of feet of dust. And so should the earth. That is what NASA feared when they landed probes on the moon, that they would be swmaped with dust. This dust contains lots of radioactive elements, such as iridium. Now the earth has nowhere near the expected levels of these elements.

---

Based upon an inaccurate estimate of cosmic dust.

quote:

---

Now take the faint-sun paradox. If the earth really is all those billions of years old, the earth should have received ~25% less light then compared to now, making the earth freezingly cold. Reaction processes would be very slow. There is no geological evidence that the earth was significantly cooler all those years ago. Ice ages don't count.

---

Ok. Fine. So what? Before the sun ignited such would have been the case. But earths own gravitational contraction would have heated it to a liguid anyway.There is no geological evidence of anything from before the Earth's crust solidified.

quote:

---

Take the moon. If the moon really is as old as people think it is, then it should have escaped long ago. The current rate the moon is moving away is 4cm / yr. It would have been even higher in the past. Extrapolating backwards, the ABSOLUTE maximum given ideal conditions and assuptions would have it less than 1.4 billion years old.

---

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html ... note the part that states that the moon is now retreating anomalously rapidly.

quote:

---

Take salt in the oceans. If the earth really is as old as the billions of years, the oceans should be a helluva lot saltier than they are.

---

Salt doesn't get to the ocean and stay. It settles out into the ocean floor-- directly or in the bodies of dead ocean critters. It is then lifted back out by plate techtonics. ----- off the top of my head

quote:

---

Then take magnetic reversals. Evolutionists always thought they took millions of years to occur. In April 1989, a paper appeared in Earth and Planetary Science Letters by Robert S. Coe and Michel Prevotfound a thin lava layer which had 90 degrees of reversal recorded continuously in it and they calculated that the layer had to cool down within a matter of 15 days or less.

---

Cite.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com