How old is the earth?

  • Thread starter sicbeing
  • 44 comments
  • 1,289 views
1,103
Cribanox
I read this off a site i used to visit a lot. Yes, this is another religion vs evolution debate, but they bring up good points.

Evidence for a young world
Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.14

The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.15

Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.16

A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.17

The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1-1/2 inches (4cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).18

Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.19


(for the refrences they give at the end of each paragraph (the number) click here

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp
 
sicbeing
Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.

I'm no scientist but, wouldn't some salt evaporate, along with the sea water, to form rain?
 
i dont know, remember i didnt write these, but i would have to say some of the water would evaporate, but the salt wouldnt, but then after it rains the water is right back in the ocean
 
Those are some excellent scientific points! I wish I would've had them for the Creation thread.
 
:lol: :lol:

Welcome to GTPlanet...where 5th Century Ideals are rife...

Earth not more than 10,000 years old....:lol: oh my sides...:lol:

Welcome to the Dark Ages.
 
what an unbiased source... 👍



about the dinosaur blood:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/growth/story/2276124p-8655575c.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63318-2005Mar24?language=printer

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html


about the magnetic field:


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/magnetic.htm


about helium:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/helium.html


about the moon:

"and the rate would have been greater in the past." thats already typical creatonist rubbish. they give no reason, but just assume something. i could just as well say it was the other way round...
but lets give the word to an expert:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_recede.html


salt:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/mineral.html



now go and read, i just hope its not too hard to understand for our creatonist friends.




"An argument with a creationist is virtually impossible. They pick and choose whatever piece of data they like." Horner
 
Swift
Those are some excellent scientific points! I wish I would've had them for the Creation thread.
Actually, they're not. They're pseudoscience based on assumptions and misrepresentations.
 
Swift...here's some things, you, and your fellow creationist obvioulsy don't know about the magnetic field

The Earth's magnetic field reverses at intervals, ranging from tens of thousands to many millions of years with an average interval of approximately 250,000 years. It is believed that this last occurred some 780,000 years ago, referred to as the Brunhes-Matayama reversal
Past field reversals are recorded in the "frozen" magnetic domains of solidified lava that has welled up along spreading ocean floor ridges; since the sea floor spreads at a fairly constant rate, this results in broad "stripes" of sea floor from which the past magnetic field direction can be read. At least once in Earth's history, the magnetic field held a constant direction for as long as 30 million years

At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker at a rate which would, if it continues, cause the field to disappear, albeit temporarily, by about 4000 AD
Other sources have put the date of field collapse as early as 3000 AD. The deterioration began roughly 150 years ago and has accelerated in the past several years. So far the strength of the earth's field has decreased by 10 to 15 percent. However, one should note that no one knows if field decay will continue in the future. Also, since a magnetic field reversal has never been observed by humans and the mechanism of field generation is not well understood, it is difficult to say what the characteristics of the magnetic field might be leading up to such a reversal.
 
vladimir
now go and read, i just hope its not too hard to understand for our creatonist friends.

Right, were slow in the head because we believe that the world isn't an accident. Cute.

Yep, read it all. Amazingly enough I was able to follow it. I'm quite surprised myself.
Thanks vladimir, and you even called me a friend. Wow.

Also, it seems that those findings are up to interpreation as much as you all say the bible is up for interpretation.
 
Duke
Actually, they're not. They're pseudoscience based on assumptions and misrepresentations.

Precisely, that's just what i was thinking whilst reading it and that's the reason there are so many conflicting theorem. Each group of scientists will use their prefered assumptions and will end up miles apart from each other.

Some interesting ideas though none the less.
 
Right, were slow in the head because we believe that the world isn't an accident. Cute.

Who believes it's an accident?

I think it's mathematical probability given the nature of our universe.
 
danoff
Who believes it's an accident?

I think it's mathematical probability given the nature of our universe.

Right, an accident. Not planned, just happened due to the course of "time". Math or no, you're saying that it simply "happened".
 
Right, an accident. Not planned, just happened due to the course of "time". Math or no, you're saying that it simply "happened".

No, not an accident. I'm saying that if you understand the nature of our universe we are a natural result. I'm saying that we are a product of our environment - virtually guaranteed to have occured.
 
danoff
No, not an accident. I'm saying that if you understand the nature of our universe we are a natural result. I'm saying that we are a product of our environment - virtually guaranteed to have occured.

Right...with no creator. It just happened to work out perfectly with no plan. Interesting.
 
Swift
Right...with no creator. It just happened to work out perfectly with no plan. Interesting.
Hmm...thats a matter of opinion.

Perfect...Mt St Helens is about to errupt again, I shouldn't really mention Tsunami whilst they are still identifying the 2000 unclaimed bodies.
Pompeii anyone...hardly perfect.


Oh and why did an intelligent creator make dolphins breathe air, when they spend their lives in water?

Oops this is Creationist stuff, and probably in the wrong thread...young earth...:lol:


Have you ever looked at a Mountain?
 
For the love of, for want of a better word, God, people! I already took that EXACT site and those EXACT points apart in another thread.

The Earth is 4.7 BILLION years old. Deal with it.
 
Right...with no creator. It just happened to work out perfectly with no plan. Interesting.

You're defining perfectly by what exists now. Truly perfect would be a lot better than this.

I don't think you're understanding me.

Is a 70 degree day perfect? Only because we evovled on planet earth where that is common.
Is the fact that we have water to drink on this planet perfect? Only because we evovled to consume water (though we know of no life that has done otherwise).
Is the fact that we have oxygen to breathe perfect? Only because we evovled to make use of the oxygen that surrounds us.

And when I mean "we" evolved, I mean life.

Human beings are a natural consequence of life. The principle of natural selection is simple logic - and so we are the logical eventuality of any life existing at all. Our planet is the logical consequence of the physics of our universe. That life exists on a planet in the solar system is a mathematical probability - and we sprang up on whatever rock that was and felt like naming it Earth later on.

Happened by chance? Hardly. Happened as a direct result of logic and phsyics? Yes.

Is logic the result of a creator? What about the laws of physics? Perhaps. I don't know the answer to that, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions just because I don't know the answer. The evidence so far tells me that science will come up with answers for even the most fundamental of questions and so I'm content to not know (since I have no choice).
 
Swift
Right...with no creator. It just happened to work out perfectly with no plan. Interesting.
this thread is not about whether there is a god or not. you may not know, but even most christians that live outside the US are perfectly fine with believing in their god, practicing their religion and at the same accepting scientific facts.

just because someone says the earth is more than 10.000 years old he does not say there was no god. maybe god has jerked everything off in the big bang billions of years ago? who knows...


what we know though, is that the earth is indeed quite old.
 
right, i only posted the creationist theory to spark a thread about the old earth, i personally think just from what i grew up on that the earth is billions of years old
 
danoff
Is logic the result of a creator? What about the laws of physics? Perhaps. I don't know the answer to that, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions just because I don't know the answer. The evidence so far tells me that science will come up with answers for even the most fundamental of questions and so I'm content to not know (since I have no choice).

Copout. That's just a plain old copout. Do me a favor. You want to say and believe there is no God, fine. But don't try to leave just a little bit of room incase you're wrong.
 
sicbeing
right, i only posted the creationist theory to spark a thread about the old earth, i personally think just from what i grew up on that the earth is billions of years old
Good man, it's one thing to believe in a God ( yes... a God, lets be open minded) but it is quite another to ignore the world around you.

The first theory about the age of the earth being only a few thousand years old was put forward in 1654 by...yep you guessed it, an Archbishop.

It was then in the 1770's that James Hutton, Father of Geology noticed that Hadrians wall, which was built by the romans, and after 1500 years, showed little sign of erosion. Whilst the mountains and general landscape were scarred by eons of rain and wind. He was the first to suspect the earth was far older. He published his theory in 1785.

Even in 1899 they were talking about the age of the earth to be in excess of 100million years.
Swift
Copout. That's just a plain old copout. Do me a favor. You want to say and believe there is no God, fine. But don't try to leave just a little bit of room incase you're wrong.
I wouldnt call that a cop out, have you heard of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ;)
One can only be 99.999% sure of anything
 
all he said was he doesnt know. he didnt say "yea theres no god, but just in case im wrong, god rules!"

-edit-

yes tacet blue, i believe in -A- god.
 
Famine
For the love of, for want of a better word, God, people! I already took that EXACT site and those EXACT points apart in another thread.

The Earth is 4.7 BILLION years old. Deal with it.

Oh dear Famine, I'll have to totally disagree with you on that one ;)

According to my figures, Potassium-Argon dating puts the date of the earth at 4.3 billion years, and 0.4 Billion years is quite a length of time :)

Disclaimer:
Ok Famine is probably right ;) as he might be talking about the molten earth whereas the dates I have provided are from solid rock...but I'd still like to hear it from the hungry one.

Edit:

sicbeing
yes tacet blue, i believe in -A- god.
Glad to hear it, for all I know Allah, God, Pan, Vishnu, Gaia, Thor, Apollo, and Venus (maybe the Giant space Penguin too ) are all up there playing no limits Texas Hold'em whilst laughing at our ant like progress across the back of this giant Space Camel :lol:
 
i believe that it's 6000 years old, good ol fundamental young earth creation viewpoint here for whatever its worth (remember what God's word says is my final authority in anything and everything)
 
But what about Egyptians? Those (pieces, people, temples) were dated back 4-6000 years, and yet all fossils discovered to then can be counted as accurate and have the scripture from then on to prove it (ie. heiroglyphics, evolution of written language). So if the carbon dating and a radiometric scanning (not sure if that's the correct name) is proven accruate, and it decides something is 450 million years old, how do you argue that?

And what about ancient chinese civilizations dating back to almost 10,000 years ago with scripture leading up from then until now?
 

Latest Posts

Back