Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
How old is the Earth?
61 Answers
How old is the Earth?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bobthebandit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hi Naomi
As I said before I tend to lean toward the theory of a Young Earth rather one that is much older. However we obviously dont know either way, but new scientific research tends to suggest the planet is not that old.
Also regard to Evolution, it may have happened but it seems very unlikely.Therefore something else took place, which could have been some sort of Grand Design, or another event beyond our present understanding
As I said before I tend to lean toward the theory of a Young Earth rather one that is much older. However we obviously dont know either way, but new scientific research tends to suggest the planet is not that old.
Also regard to Evolution, it may have happened but it seems very unlikely.Therefore something else took place, which could have been some sort of Grand Design, or another event beyond our present understanding
bobthebandit - your arrogance is unbelievable.
You dismiss the work of many thousands of geologists over hundreds of years with the statement "In simple terms, no rock would have survived this long ie due to constant rain, wind and sun erosion,as well as constant volcanic, and seismic activity." The process of erosion is very well understood and I don't hear the experts in the field calling the age of the Earth into question. By the way, volcanic action can create new rocks, see the Hawaiian islands for an example. Also, seismic activity results from the movement of tectonic plates, which can build mountains where plates collide and creates new rocks by the freezing of magma drawn to the surface where the plates are stretched apart. So you are wrong to describe volcanic action and seismic activity simply as forces of erosion.
You say that "The late Victorian beliefs of the Old Earth and Evolution are now being re thought." and "... new scientific research tends to suggest the planet is not that old." Perhaps there are people questioning these ideas, but they are very much in the minority and have a huge uphill struggle to discredit all the excellent science that has been done over the last few hundred years.
Finally, you say "Also regard to Evolution, it may have happened but it seems very unlikely.". Darwin travelled for years studying flaura and fauna and came to the conclusion that successive generations can adapt to their environment. He did not know the mechanism but, to him, the evidence was overwhelming even though it conflicted with his firmly held religious beliefs. How did you come to your conclusion? What body of evidence can you put forward to refute the Theory of Evolution? Now, through the study of genetics, we are able to understand the mechanism of evolution. Darwin would be delighted.
You dismiss the work of many thousands of geologists over hundreds of years with the statement "In simple terms, no rock would have survived this long ie due to constant rain, wind and sun erosion,as well as constant volcanic, and seismic activity." The process of erosion is very well understood and I don't hear the experts in the field calling the age of the Earth into question. By the way, volcanic action can create new rocks, see the Hawaiian islands for an example. Also, seismic activity results from the movement of tectonic plates, which can build mountains where plates collide and creates new rocks by the freezing of magma drawn to the surface where the plates are stretched apart. So you are wrong to describe volcanic action and seismic activity simply as forces of erosion.
You say that "The late Victorian beliefs of the Old Earth and Evolution are now being re thought." and "... new scientific research tends to suggest the planet is not that old." Perhaps there are people questioning these ideas, but they are very much in the minority and have a huge uphill struggle to discredit all the excellent science that has been done over the last few hundred years.
Finally, you say "Also regard to Evolution, it may have happened but it seems very unlikely.". Darwin travelled for years studying flaura and fauna and came to the conclusion that successive generations can adapt to their environment. He did not know the mechanism but, to him, the evidence was overwhelming even though it conflicted with his firmly held religious beliefs. How did you come to your conclusion? What body of evidence can you put forward to refute the Theory of Evolution? Now, through the study of genetics, we are able to understand the mechanism of evolution. Darwin would be delighted.
It would be interesting to explore why you think evolution is unlikely. It is actually very simple. Imagine the primordial soup, where conditions are such that complex organic molecules are formed. Molecules will form and then break up in a random manner. Short strings of DNA can form and then dissociate, also in a random manner. Then an interesting thing begins to happen. Under the right conditions, a DNA molecule can make a copy of itself. Now, there isn't any purpose or intelligence acting here, it is random, but the DNA molecules that last longer before they break up will have made more copies of themselves than shorter lived varieties. So, gradually, the longer lived varieties will predominate. Another interesting property of DNA is its effect on its surroundings. It can encourage particular proteins to form. Those strings of DNA that encourage the formation of proteins which are beneficial to the DNA will predominate over those that don't. When I say beneficial, I mean the help the DNA to stay intact and help the DNA to make copies of itself. Now it starts to get competitive, because the source of molecules for building DNA and proteins is not unlimited. Even a small advantageous trait is going to affect the prevalence of that trait in the next generation. And a negative trait will quickly fail. Leave it for a few billion years and single-celled lifeforms develop, then multi-celled, then land-living animals and plants, then intelligence. But these traits only develop because they are advantageous to their DNA. So, there is no God, we are simply vehicles for our DNA whose only drive is ensure its survival and replication. It remains to be seen whether intelligence is a long term benefit.
Bob
The Earth's magnetic field is shrinking - this is not evidence for a young Earth.
If you examine the magnetic field polarisations in certain rock strata you will find that it switches direction as does the Earth's magnetic field.
The Eaths magnetic field will shortly (in geological terms) vanish and then reverse and get stronger.
You must be careful of accepting what you read on the internet at face value.
If you google search age of the Earth you will get a large number of sites telling you the Earth is young and that carbon dating is rubbish etc. etc.
Strangely these are almost exclusively American and in a religious context.
It's not actually difficult - let's ignore radio carbon dating.
1/ Ever looked at a map? ever noticed how Africa Europe and America look like they could almost fit together?
They have been moving apart for millions of years. We can actually measure it now, directly. - about 2cm a year.
The Atlantic is about 3,000 Km wide if the Earth were 10,000 years old it would have to be moving at 300 meters a year.
2/ Why don't we find human or even rabit skeletons with dinosaur bones?
These are just 2 trivial example there are many different techniques and they all point to an old Earth - I can't find any reference to the mensa thing you refer to
For those interested in the History of how we got the Earth's age there's a great Radio discussion you can listen to here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/ inourtime_20031120.shtml
(select listen again on the left hand side)
The Earth's magnetic field is shrinking - this is not evidence for a young Earth.
If you examine the magnetic field polarisations in certain rock strata you will find that it switches direction as does the Earth's magnetic field.
The Eaths magnetic field will shortly (in geological terms) vanish and then reverse and get stronger.
You must be careful of accepting what you read on the internet at face value.
If you google search age of the Earth you will get a large number of sites telling you the Earth is young and that carbon dating is rubbish etc. etc.
Strangely these are almost exclusively American and in a religious context.
It's not actually difficult - let's ignore radio carbon dating.
1/ Ever looked at a map? ever noticed how Africa Europe and America look like they could almost fit together?
They have been moving apart for millions of years. We can actually measure it now, directly. - about 2cm a year.
The Atlantic is about 3,000 Km wide if the Earth were 10,000 years old it would have to be moving at 300 meters a year.
2/ Why don't we find human or even rabit skeletons with dinosaur bones?
These are just 2 trivial example there are many different techniques and they all point to an old Earth - I can't find any reference to the mensa thing you refer to
For those interested in the History of how we got the Earth's age there's a great Radio discussion you can listen to here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/ inourtime_20031120.shtml
(select listen again on the left hand side)
Bob, I'm convinced we don't know the whole story especially with regard to the appearance of modern man, but the evidence that the earth is very ancient indeed, and that life was present long before the dates you give, is overwhelming, and in my opinion, indisputable. This may be of interest to you.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scien ce/article5719640.ece
Like Jake, I couldn't find the Mensa article you referred to either, but I'd be very interested in reading it. Do you have a link?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scien ce/article5719640.ece
Like Jake, I couldn't find the Mensa article you referred to either, but I'd be very interested in reading it. Do you have a link?
google has it 4.5bn......that's it then as Google is gospel!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-ear th.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-ear th.html
No it doesn't Theland.
Radiological methods are one form of dating and are believed to be the most accurate.
There are many others that all point to an old Earth - I've pointed out a couple above.
I am interested in all opinions but only when people explain why they hold them.
Personally when someone says "I think....." and doesn't say why they think it - well that doesn't count as an opinion just a knee jerk reflex
Radiological methods are one form of dating and are believed to be the most accurate.
There are many others that all point to an old Earth - I've pointed out a couple above.
I am interested in all opinions but only when people explain why they hold them.
Personally when someone says "I think....." and doesn't say why they think it - well that doesn't count as an opinion just a knee jerk reflex
Dear Nims, when you threw your knickers on the stage at the Tom Jones concert at 10:45, in March 2007, an observer from the planet Poxywoxy, 3000 light years away, would have seen your knickers arcing and flamboyantly through the air at 07:35 on the 3rd March 1931, during the ?Great Depression, so how can you try to gauge the age of the earthe without carbon dating your knickerts from pasty concerts?
Or maybe I'm wrong!
Or maybe I'm wrong!
Theland.
Continental drift gives you an old earth
Mountain creationgives you an old Earth
Thickness of sedimentary rocks gives you an old Earth
Rate of cooling of the planet gives you an old Earth (internal radioativity makes it even older)
Salt concentration in the oceans give you an old Earth
Spectroscopic analysis of H/He composition of the Sun gives you an old Sun and hence an old Earth.
None of these methods are good for giving you a precise date and are quite rightly criticised but all shows you that the Earth is old.
Add these into the Killer radiometric measurements which agree with each other and a startling lack of evidence for a young Earth and it's a pretty open and shut case
Continental drift gives you an old earth
Mountain creationgives you an old Earth
Thickness of sedimentary rocks gives you an old Earth
Rate of cooling of the planet gives you an old Earth (internal radioativity makes it even older)
Salt concentration in the oceans give you an old Earth
Spectroscopic analysis of H/He composition of the Sun gives you an old Sun and hence an old Earth.
None of these methods are good for giving you a precise date and are quite rightly criticised but all shows you that the Earth is old.
Add these into the Killer radiometric measurements which agree with each other and a startling lack of evidence for a young Earth and it's a pretty open and shut case
Another interesting fact:-
I quote from Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., ICR associate professor of physics
First published in
Impact #384, ICR
June 2005
"Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of �mitochondrial Eve� from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.
DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils. Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts."
I quote from Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., ICR associate professor of physics
First published in
Impact #384, ICR
June 2005
"Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of �mitochondrial Eve� from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.
DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils. Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts."
A pity that you didn't bother to read the 2008 paper which ponts out that the so called soft tissues are far more likely to be biofilms and that when a non-cellular structures called framboids are coated with biofilms they can resemble nucelated red blood cells. Nor did you bother to mention that these claims were based on the work of paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, who was less than happy about strict creationists failing to report her work and conclusions accurately.
Oh yes, Schweitzer describes herself as a evangelical Christian, but does not see her work as supporting young earthism or refuting Darwin.
You quoted something by Paul Abramson before .. the quote included the statement "It's not scientific to ignore the values which don't match current beliefs ...". But strangely you seem to want to do just that by ignoring anything which doesn't match you believe.
Oh yes, Schweitzer describes herself as a evangelical Christian, but does not see her work as supporting young earthism or refuting Darwin.
You quoted something by Paul Abramson before .. the quote included the statement "It's not scientific to ignore the values which don't match current beliefs ...". But strangely you seem to want to do just that by ignoring anything which doesn't match you believe.
Latest Posts
Songs That Should Have Been Number 1
Music14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles68 mins ago
What Do You Think Of The King's...
News69 mins ago
Animals & Nature152 mins ago
