Posted on 09/21/2003 11:20:34 PM PDT by 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):
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: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?
- 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.
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.
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.
That's a bit insulting. (Although not as much as your post 30. Do you really believe creationists deny the existence of dinosaurs? Give me a break.) First of all, there's the indirect implication that no creationists are scientists.
Secondly, there's a difference between villifying and questioning. We are encouraged to question our govt. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that science should never be questioned. Science has certainly been wrong before. And no doubt will be again. It's more like you're saying "Silly child, don't you dare criticize what you have no hope of ever comprehending."
I just want proof that shrub was around 40k years ago. And in the meantime I reserve the right to be skeptical about assumptions, even those made by the scientific community.
Were you looking for curvature that someone told you was there? Are you sure the window glass did not distort your vision? Anyway, that's about as good a way as any to be absolutely convinced of the earth's curvature: see it for yourself.
Do you suppose a few people who believe in a young earth, created by an Almighty Being, had a hand in designing that aircraft you were flying in?
Maybe, as some say, we were created in God's image which would make us creators, as well, but on a lesser scale. In that scenario, the universe we know is our creation with all the good and the evil we experience and which we get the credit and the blame for on judgement day. We create it and are held responsible for what results. If God created it, there would be no flaws.
Wrong. The theory of evolution by natural selection arose in the 1860's, with the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. We didn't know the age of the Earth until the 1950's, when the wide variety (not just one isotope system) of radiometric dating procedures were developed. Darwin didn't have the faintest idea how old the Earth was -- he just knew it was at least millions of years old.
The list of “anomalies” in planetary science is a good example of why “creation science” is laughed at by most real scientists. Every one of the supposed “facts” are either wrong, misleadingly stated, or completely irrelevant.
Mercury should be stone dead but has a global magnetic field.
Magnetic fields don’t mean a planet is “alive” – it just means that some portion of the object has acquired some type of stable remnant magnetization. In Mercury’s case, this is probably a result of its relatively large iron core.
If Venus’ surface had a 4.6 billion year history, the first 90% has been obliterated.
So what? The same happens to be true of Earth and Io, only in those cases, the fractions are closer to 98% and 99.99%, respectively.
Earth’s magnetic field is decreasing at an alarming rate.
”Alarming to who? And so what if it is?
The Grand Canyon could have been carved in just the last few thousand years.
More like a couple of hundred thousand years, but even if I accept this estimate, what does that have to do with the age of the Earth?
The moon and meteorites contain short-lived radionuclides.
Yes, because short-lived nucleides are constantly created by cosmic ray bombardment of the lunar surface.
The moon should be stone dead, but shows evidence of activity today (transient lunar phenomena).
Not a single shred of evidence has ever emerged that these “transient events” relate to anything other than observer hallucination. And anyway, why should the Moon be “stone dead”?
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.
Numbers pulled out of the air, but the highlighted phrase is the one that gets me – a lot of the “missing” comets have hit the planets, creating the heavily cratered surfaces we see throughout the Solar System, from Mercury to the satellites of the outer planets.
Meteorites are young, based on cosmic ray exposure.
Their exposure to cosmic rays is recent, but that doesn’t mean that the rockes themselves are young. Most meteorites have spent their existence deep within larger parent bodies, broken up through collision and tidal forces.
Some groups of asteroids have preferential spin orientations, that should have been randomized by now.
Then why are the satellites of the planets synchronously locked in rotation with their revolution periods around their primaries? Shouldn’t they have all been “randomized” by now?
Many asteroids are binary, but gravitational forces would tend to disrupt them in short order.
Asteroids are being constantly collided with, impacted, and re-assembled. At any given time, we only see a “snapshot” of the population. How many is “many”?
Assumed cratering rates on Mars could be way off the mark, casting into doubt a widely relied on method of estimating ages.
We use crater counts to estimate ages where we don’t have rocks to date – the Mars ages are tied to the lunar ones because we have lunar samples from known locations. Most of the “facts” in this list are way off the mark, casting doubt on its potential use for anything other than backup toilet paper.
Large areas of Martian bedrock are exposed, but should have been buried deep in dust by now.
Large areas of Earth’s bedrock are exposed too. So what?
Io has far more volcanic activity than can be explained by tidal heating.
In fact, the level of volcanic activity on Io is perfectly predicted by tidal heating theory. We know this because Io volcanism was predicted BEFORE the arrival of Voyager 1 in 1979.
Io and Europa are losing a ton of their mass every second.
They also gain mass by accretion of debris.
Europa might have active geyser activity even today.
So? What does this have to do with the age of the Solar System?
Enough. You get the picture. Half-truths and misleading concepts, presented as conundrums.
Seems arbitrary.
People are fascinating. A few weeks ago, I was playing golf with an older guy whose one and only concern seemed to be his own tax rate. When another fella objected that our current budget policies were going to create an enormous burden for folks in 20 years, the first fella replied, "Why should I give a sh-t about that?"
I didn't have any answer for him. ;-)
I raised that very point with a creationist several years ago. He replied that when the universe was created, the light was already in place.
Which, of course, means that God created the universe so as to make it look much older than it really is. Once you go down THAT road, you need never look at science again; every piece of evidence that contradicts your theory can be dismissed with the assertion that "God put that piece of evidence there in order to make it appear that I'm wrong."
Not very nice of God if you ask me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.