How Old Is the Earth?

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 6/05/2003 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

[bondserv]

How Old Is the Earth?   06/05/2003
In the June 6 issue of Science, Stein B. Jacobsen of Harvard reviews current thinking about when the earth formed and how long it took.  For the absolute age, he refers to a 4.567 billion year figure from a 2002 Science paper by Amelin et al, which analyzed meteorites for various lead isotopes and short-lived radionuclides (including ⁷Be with a half-life of 52 days).  For relative figures, he compares tungsten and hafnium isotopic data to produce his timeline with the following caption:

The first new solid grains formed from the gas and dust cloud called the Solar Nebula some 4567 million years ago.  Within 100,000 years, the first embryos of the terrestrial planets had formed.  Some grew more rapidly than others, and within 10 million years, ~64% of Earth had formed; by that time, proto-Earth must have been the dominant planet at 1 astronomical unit (the distance between Earth and the Sun). Accretion was effectively complete at 30 million years, when a Mars-sized impactor led to the formation of the Moon.

The 100,000 year figure reflects another article in the same issue, reporting on the recent annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society, in which author Robert Irion relays that growing numbers of astronomers are thinking the planets formed quickly by processes other than the traditional planetesimal accretion hypothesis.  So despite Jacobsen’s air of confidence with his timeline, he concludes (emphasis added):

Precise measurements of W [tungsten] isotopes are among the most difficult measurements ever attempted by geo- and cosmochemists.  As shown above, these studies are extremely worthwhile, even if some results turn out to be incorrect.  It is important that several groups continue to perform such measurements and challenge each other’s results.  A few precise and well-substantiated measurements are more informative than a large body of data with lower precision and accuracy.

Not many would disagree with these sentiments.  And yet earlier in his article, Jacobsen acknowledged that the dating game is still filled with surprises.  Here are some excerpts (emphasis added):

• Recent reports on the tungsten (W) isotope composition of meteorites have led to a completely revised time scale for the formation of the terrestrial planets.
• These new results have fundamentally changed the way in which the Hf-W chronometer can be used, because they demonstrate that ¹⁸²Hf was live when Earth formed.
• However, the groups drew different conclusions from their data.
• Wasserburg et al. have shown that such a high initial abundance will only occur if several different types of supernovas contributed to the materials from which the solar system was made.

Thus, it appears that Jacobsen’s timeline should only be viewed as tentative at best.

So much rides on this date of 4.6 billion years.  The entire biological evolution story and most of modern geology depend on it.  It is quoted in the literature without question as if it came from a religious revelation.  So we looked at the Amelin et al paper for data etched in stone, and found a house of cards.  Though the data tables look impressive, over and over the authors build one assumption on another, judge some isotopic ratios to be more valid than others, and assume the very thing they are trying to prove – that the planets evolved out of a dust disk, which took a lot of time.  How can they arrive at a number with four significant figures when nobody was there watching, and the methods depend on processes no one could ever know?  If multiple supernovas were needed to seed the solar nebula, what effect did that have?  What about Shu’s X-wind model, and proposed X-ray solar flares 100,000 times more powerful than those observed today, and multiple hypothesized episodes of melting and refreezing?  They admit the meteorites were open systems, but how can they rule out processes unknown to us that could mess up the ratios?  There is enough tweak space to concoct any story.
    Jacobsen’s paper represents a common formula in evolutionary literature.  A just-so story is told with all the authority of an eyewitness news reporter, and then the conclusion says, “more studies are needed.”  This can be construed as, “We already know we are right, but we need more funding to find data that fit our preconceived notions.”  This is a good time to recall Maier’s Law.
    Nothing else in the solar system leads one to conclude such a huge date of 4.6 billion years.  Here is a short list of phenomena, reported in previous headlines from papers in the secular scientific journals, that set upper limits much younger than that:

• Mercury should be stone dead but has a global magnetic field.
• If Venus’ surface had a 4.6 billion year history, the first 90% has been obliterated.
• Earth’s magnetic field is decreasing at an alarming rate.
• The Grand Canyon could have been carved in just the last few thousand years.
• The moon and meteorites contain short-lived radionuclides.
• The moon should be stone dead, but shows evidence of activity today (transient lunar phenomena).
• Comets are burning up too fast (all the ones we know would be gone in 5000 years), and the hordes of spent bodies that should exist after 4 billion years cannot be found.  Furthermore, the hypothetical Oort Cloud of comets could only contain 10% of earlier estimates.
• Meteorites are young, based on cosmic ray exposure.
• Some groups of asteroids have preferential spin orientations, that should have been randomized by now.
• Many asteroids are binary, but gravitational forces would tend to disrupt them in short order.
• Assumed cratering rates on Mars could be way off the mark, casting into doubt a widely relied on method of estimating ages.
• Large areas of Martian bedrock are exposed, but should have been buried deep in dust by now.
• Io has far more volcanic activity than can be explained by tidal heating.
• Io and Europa are losing a ton of their mass every second.
• Europa might have active geyser activity even today.
• Ganymede has a global magnetic field and evidence of recent resurfacing.
• Callisto shows signs of ongoing erosion, and has far fewer small craters than expected.
• Every planetary scientist agrees planetary rings are young, because they erode rapidly.
• Titan’s atmosphere is eroding quickly and cannot be billions of years old.
• Titan’s surface should be blanketed with half a mile of hydrocarbons by now, but large patches of bedrock ice are found.
• Enceladus, Tethys, Miranda, Ariel etc. are freezing cold, but show evidence of recent surface activity of unknown origin.
• Triton has a complex surface and active geysers, but inhabits a circular orbit (retrograde) without tidal stress.
• Triton and Pluto show evidence of a tenuous atmosphere.
• Neptune is the farthest large planet but has the strongest winds, and shows evidence of seasonal activity.
• Neptune’s rings have unexpected clumps of material.
• The orbit of Pluto’s large moon Charon is not tidally locked.
• Small moons are subject to short collisional lifetimes, yet each gas giant has many of them.
• The Poynting-Robertson effect would tend to sweep the solar system of dust quickly, but the solar system still has a lot of dust.
• Dust disks around other stars are seen to erode quickly.

This is just a partial list (details for most can be found by following the chain links on Solar System and Dating Methods).  Each of these, if examined impartially without the prior belief that the solar system is billions of years old, would lead one to estimate much lower ages.  To fit the 4.6 billion year timeline, all these observed phenomena have to be str-r-r-r-r-etched by many orders of magnitude.  Why must that one figure of 4.6 billion years, arrived at by multiple levels of assumptions and tweaks, be the sacred cow to which all must bow?
    So here we have a remarkable situation.  At the early end of this 4.6 billion year timeline, everything happens rapidly; gas giants can form in just a few hundred or thousand years.  At the near end, we see evidence of youth everywhere.  There is a huge middle where astronomers need to keep short-lived phenomena going, like trying to drive around the world on a gallon of gas.  Is there somebody out there, anybody, who will have the courage to question this bizarre figure of 4.6 billion years?  If you do, be careful.  It will be like tickling the bottom guy on a five-level human pyramid, with Charlie D. juggling on the top.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"And the Earth is flat . . ."

Pure reason and senses could easily conclude little more than this. It took some Bible believing scientists to show us otherwise and publish that knowledge.

But how do you know it is not flat? Just because someone told you so? Just because you've read some things and seen some pictures?

[djf]

I was on a commercial flight once that got up to about 37,000 ft on an extraordinarily clear day. You can see the curvature.

[The Iguana]

I see...I see a thousand post thread in your near future.

[Drawsing]

From what I understand, the age of rocks is not settled. Current dating methods rely on assumptions about past conditions. There is also a tendency to use circular "logic".
"How old is that rock?"
"3 billion years."
"How do you know that?"
"Because it has this 3 billion year old fossil in it."
"How do you know the fossil is that old?"
"Because it is in this 3 billion year old rock!"

[GatekeeperBookman]

"he defies probability and is beyond our comprehension."

He DEFINED probability!

"God could have created everything one second ago. That would not be rational, so He did not"

But, if God is in charge of this casino & He is-He set the rules at point zero, Day One. He could have created everything yesterday. How would we know if he so arranged the rules as to make us blind to the event? 'Things' would work a bit differently for us today, but that could have been done-if desired. 'Us' would be very different & our perceptions, if we had them, would be so arranged.

God is the Original Cause. He set the Rules ( we call them Physics, Biology, &etc ). The micro & macro processes are controlled by the rules. There is flexibility in the system-we use the words uncertainty ( in Physics ), free-will ( in religion & psychology ), &etc.

Such rules likely don't exist 'outside' our Universe-ever wonder what is 'outside' our little play-pen?

Evolution is His greatest scheme-He knew the end before He began, like a brick-layer arranging the erection of a large & complex building-a building which can change over time.

He may reset the rules at the next Big Bang.

I really dislike the blindness of so many on these threads-those who ignore the possibilities. Those who are content with half an answer. For a dolt such as myself, the answers seem self-evident, considering the possibilities. No, wait! I LIKE these threads & the people who are on them-such an opportunity!!

[Soliton]

Most creationists see Usher's date of 4004 BC, derived from all the "begats" and other dated information, as the date of creation.

Because soooo much points to an older earth, it is hardly ever mentioned any more.

As an example:

Australian shrub could be oldest life on Earth
Copyright 1996 by Reuters
10/18/96

"MELBOURNE, Australia (Reuter) - Australian scientists said Friday they had found what might be the world's oldest living organism, a clonally reproducing, 40,000-year-old shrub growing on a remote mountainside on
the island of Tasmania."

Imagine a shrub 34000 years older than the earth.

Creationists criticize the conclusions of scientists while benefiting from the tools (like computers) and the quality of life those same conclusions produce. Kind of like liberals villifying America while benefitting from its freedoms.

[Prodigal Son]

I was on a commercial flight once that got up to about 37,000 ft on an extraordinarily clear day. You can see the curvature.

Aye, I've had similar experiences.
Once I took off in one direction and kept going in that same direction until I reached home again ;-)

[twittle]

As a person who believs in creation, one thing does puzzle me. How are we able to see the light from stars many thousands of light years away if the Universe is only 6,000 years old?

[Consort]

Maybe some people evolve faster than others, and maybe it doesn't matter how old the Earth, and the formation of the universe was a one-time event...and we missed it....and scientists have to get over that.

[Soliton]

Satan makes you think you see light from across the universe, and he put fake dinosaur bones in the soil to tempt you. LOOK AWAY QUICK!

[The Coopster]

An absolutely perfect answer. I can't see how anyone would think differently. I am a faithful person, but there were obviously millions of years prior to human life on earth. In Biblical times, 1000 was a considerably larger number to people than it is today, and may have been a number that people threw out there to mean "one heck of a lot".

How is it so difficult for some to see that maybe they don't understand everything, either?

I may quote your post from time to time, if that's ok with you. And I'm definitely picking up the books to read.

[Elsie]

...but probably not on THIS thread: unless it gets a LOT better than a Pee Wee Herman chat room....

[rintense]

Ask Helen Thomas. She's been around since the earth was created.

[microgood]

Creationists criticize the conclusions of scientists while benefiting from the tools (like computers) and the quality of life those same conclusions produce. Kind of like liberals villifying America while benefitting from its freedoms.

There is science and then there is science. The science used to launch the space shuttle and a Cruise Missle is verifiable scientifically. Constants for differential equations used to model these systems can be determined. How old the earth is cannot be, nor can things like global warming. Huge assumptions must be made/extrapolated.

[The Coopster]

Wow! Another great post!

This won't be a bloated, behemoth of a thread. How can you refute this logic?

[Soliton]

Maybe, but the fact that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years is a fact as solid as those you mention.

[Ichneumon]

There is also a tendency to use circular "logic". "How old is that rock?" "3 billion years." "How do you know that?" "Because it has this 3 billion year old fossil in it." "How do you know the fossil is that old?" "Because it is in this 3 billion year old rock!"

Isn't bearing false witness a sin? Don't make false accusations, please.

[Scenic Sounds]

"How Old Is the Earth?" No flesh man knows, and we are not told by our Heavenly Father.

I don't know how much I can help on all this, but it was already here when I first got here.

[Soliton]

Geological evidence suggests that Earth may have had surface water -- and thus conditions to support life -- billions of years earlier than previously thought.

Scientists reconstructed the portrait of early Earth by reading the telltale chemical composition of the oldest known terrestrial rock. The 4.4-billion-year-old mineral sample suggests that early Earth was not a roiling ocean of magma, but instead was cool enough for water, continents, and conditions that could have supported life. The age of the sample may also undermine accepted current views on how and when the moon was formed. The research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and is published in this week's issue of the journal Nature.

It was dated based on oxygen isotope ratios. As solid, and simple calculation.

[microgood]

Maybe, but the fact that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years is a fact as solid as those you mention.

Not being a physicist, I cannot dispute the science of universe formation, but I have read a bit about the age of rocks using Krypton's and other element's decay (kind of like Carbon dating for rocks) and there is some assuming going on there. And there is no science to support the old primordial soup theory. None at all.