How Old is the Earth ?

"I believe that time is circular, and therefore you cannot put a time on the beginning of the universe. The cosmos, which may be composed of an infinite # of universes, never bagan and won't ever end."
--Age of the earth, not origin of the Universe, also, are you a cosmologist? I was just wondering.------------------

"What do you want to know about cosmology TC?"
--I guess I wasn't really asking, but I would come up with a couple questions such as the methods for star measurement and the like, cosmology is another one of those fields that I would love to get into, Though I would rather Geology Marine/Geophysics, Molecular and celluar biology, and ofcourse cosmology/cosmogeny/astrophysics, and its relatives.
--I would argue in the cosmological field of a young earth, but I would be to have the equiptment to carry on discussion as I could site many different theories and everything like that, but I would have to know the information and how everything works to sustain the argument.------------------

"Well,lets consider the diverging points of view here...one one side,you have creationist establishing the age of the earth at 6152 years old based entirely on the reading of a book writen God know when and God know by whom(the creationists themselves dont even know who the autor(s) is)"
--Who said it was 6152 years old?"that may very well be just a collection of recycled mythologies from earlier times,stating that from jesus,who lived about 2000 years ago"
--Just remember ludvanB, this argument is not at all valid untill you can figure some support."(some people often forget that there is a 5-10% tolerence to our calendar...meaning that today we might be in the year somewhere between 1802 and 2202)"
--Cool, but where did you get the 5-10% tolerance assertion, never heard of it?"they could go back 4150 years counting the genealogy of men who supposadly lived to by 900+ year all the way to Adam,the alledged human on earth after the 6 day creation thereof. And on the other extreme,you have people who studied the question for years,decades and even centuries(not the same guys,since we dont live 900 like the patriarch of christianity alledgedly did),and in many fields of study,have converged toward the ball park conclusion(aside from math,nothing is ever 100% precise in science) that our world is ABOUT 4 billion years old. Based on these facts,who would you say sounds like the more plausible alternative?"
--I don't at all argue, and I should hope no other creatinist does unless they have a very, and I mean very good reason for it, that the earth is young by geneological records. Also what are these facts that say that the world is in the billions of years (4.5 at estimate), that the young earth cannot deal with.------------------

"How strong is your math background?"
--I'm strong, but I'm still inadvancment in math. I am doing some Physics and I'll have to get into calc soon."If your comfortable with calculus I really recomend this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201547309/qid=1013807778/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_67_1/002-5138200-2718434It was one of the texts I used at Uni and is very good as a undergrad level intro to everything from planetary motion to the black holes...."
--I think that this would be a very good book, I remember you recomended it to me earlier in another forum, I don't think i'll be able to purchase it, though I'll have to check the local libaries.------------------

"Wasn't calculus a Roman Caesar?
May as well be......"
--I think we were speaking of mathematics. ------------------

"Has anyone entertained the idea that if God created Adam as an adult why couldnt he create the earth as a million years old?"
--Because Adam was actaually '0' years old when he was an created. You could argue if you really wanted to that the world 'look's' millions/billions of years old, but really at the day of creation it was 0.------------------

"I just wish to point out that there has previously been considerable discussion on this topic, at the Great Debate topics:"
--I think my Dating methods discussion forum sort of collapsed because it was too vague, there were many conversations in various areas all going on at the same time.------------------

I should have emphesized my position being nothing near the idea that it 'looks' millions/billions of years old.------------------

"Oh. I'm sorry TC. I'm not a cosmologist. But perhaps you could enlighten me. I have a theory on tie, and you are SURE that Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Charles Darwin, and the like, are completely mistaken."
--Besides the argument from athority, I'm sure that you are well aware that all these great scientists arent all Old earthers."I think one of the biggest issues here is light from such things as quasars (quasars-right?). This light was emitted billions of light years away."
--How really do you know that light is billions of light years away, but I wouldn't be so readilly arguing with that point."I've heard ALL the creationist theories."
--I'm sure you have."1) Satan created the light to deceive us."
--lol."2) God created the light to test our faith (well that's kinda stupid)"
--Oh goodness.."3) The universe had existed long before humans and earth, and the light had thus been coming towards our planet for millions of years*
(where does it say that in the Bible again?)"
--Concievable, tell you the truth, I don't think I should argue this point because I think this is plausable, but then again I still have humphreys book to read along with other cosmological texts.
--theres other theories, such as light varying in speed, not on its self, but by its environmental conditions, ie, is it a vacuum of space and what not."*One of the most common ways the creationists counter questions is by throwing things into creationism that are not once mentioned."
Genesis 1 - In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --"For example: I was talking to one creationist, and I asked him how all the plants in the world had regrown so fast. He told me that they had brought seeds onto the Ark. Now can someone please tell me if seeds were brought on the Ark?"
--Seeds were not brought on the ark, if you really wan't an answer find some seeds and throw them in your pool, they don't just sink, also if your going to have the masses of vegetation floating on the oceans your going to have seeds on them also."If the creationists want to take the bible as a history book, then they better not add bits of history to it just so it all makes sense. You're just gonna have to defend it the way it is."
--I fully agree. ------------------

"LUD:some creationist do give this precise date...others are content to say 6000-ish"
--Yes, I know some people that even say 'The earth was created 6150 years 154 days on August 29 at 7p.m. Its kinda sad too. "LUD:It is valid. Its not iron clad but it is valid. I've given you the explanation in another thread."
--Yes you have and its definantly...not iron clad, its more along the lines of hoover damn exploding."LUD:talk to some historians....very few people outside historian circle are aware that our caledar is an aproximation....once you get more than 500 years into the past,they cant say for sure if its another 1500 to the birth of christ...so they give a tolerence that varies from 5 to 10%,depending on who you talk to but they are quite correct to do this...there is very little writen record that is consistant with one another when you get that far back."
--Oh Ic, I though you were implying that there is found 5-10% errors in biblical text, I was going to ask if you chould show me them."And as i told you,serious historians and anthropologists say they can usually spot a fraud when it tries to be unrealisticaly precise."
--I would say it is then easilly falsifiable, so has this happend to the bible?"LUD:several carbon dating methods on moon rocks i believe have give this number..."
--You can't carbon date moon rocks, they are void of organic material."personally,i wouldn't think they give it absolute trust but they do uniformely(geologist) believe that based on the evidence at hand,they earth is WAY older than allowed by the Bible."
--Is there really anything else besides radiometric techniques that will give these ages?------------------

"TC, I think you are very naive about young earth creationism. Such organisations as answereingenesis and ICR DO view the earth as being 10,000 years or less old. They are very active in trying to discredit and rebut all evidence (geological, astronomical etc.) of a 4.5 billion year old earth."
--I am aware they are, I didn't say they werent, so whats that evidence that they are rebuking and is it valid, thats what were here for."If you find their "evidence" on the age of the earth unconvincing, you might wonder how good their "evidence" against biological evolution is."
--Whats all the evidence and can we discuss it, or should we just say everyone that attempts rebutal is ignorant and leave it at that.------------------

"I thought that article was very interesting. I don't think there is disputing the reliability of tree-ring counting and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.If there are trees that go far beyond the creationist's proposed age of earth, how can this be rationally explained."
--Unfortunatelly the site you referenced gave precious little detail;
--Here is a segment of one of an essay/article I wrote a couple months ago before I entered this debate, with quotes:

quote:

---

My Dendrochronology Paper:
Don Batten, Ph.D. :

​

'Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments d (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating.'

​

Dendrochronology has been used in an attempts to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, have been dated by counting tree rings at 4,900 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straight-forward approach to Biblical chronology.

​

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’.

​

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has shown that variation of up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings.

​

Don Batten :

​

'...evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion.'

​

Creationists have shown that the Biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the 'genus'.

​

If you considering that the immediate post-Flood world, it would have been much wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age retreated, large quantities of extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines. Though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes. Taking this into account it is no wonder this would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.

​

Claimed older tree ring chronologies are dependent on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon14 dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.

​

Though this may sound fairly reasonable, it is a circular reasoning process. It assumes that the approximately correct to linearly extimate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are very good reasons to doubt this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear estimation of te carbon clock will become, perhapsradically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere.

​

Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period (see The Answers Book, chapter 4).

​

More information - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp

---

"seems to me to be another nail in the creationist's coffin."
--I would be happy to discuss any of your other 'nails'.------------------

"Can't use carbon dating on a lava flow. Carbon has to be fixed from the air by living things for that method to work, so you can only use carbon dating on something that was once alive and is still organic in composition."
--I think he may have been aware of that (probably not but, but hey theres always room to recover), I got the same thing by lud saying that they carbon dated moon rocks, but I know that he most likely knows what is wrong with that."If God created an apparently mature world, then all of "Scientific Creationism" is invalidated, because then all evidence would necessarily indicate an old Earth. Hence, CvsE would be moot."
--True, I think that its the factors that we look at that are evident of different things, currently I am only aware of radioisotopes that give you the ages of the 'earth' or the moon and celestial astroids, etc. Whether the world 'looks' old is a matter of opinion, whether the evidence says it looks old is a little more scientific.
--What I find that is unfortunate is that there are no YEC Creationists here to join the debate, so there is a strong unbalancment there, but I am glad I can hold out in many areas the way I do.-----------------

"We don't?! Where did they all go?"
--Oops! , I meant to say something along the lines of a collage major in a scientific field. Silly me
------------------

"The deception in God's creation would not be in creating a fully developed earth, but in creating an earth with untrue evidence of a development which never happened."
--What is the evidence that shows this and why is it evidence that could only be interpereted for such a vast age of the Earth?
(added by edit) Oops, I just saw your post directly preceiding mine, though if there is anything else you would like to add to the list I could comment.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-17-2002]