How Old Is the Earth?

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

[general_re]

I am sure it does to a certain sub-set of people. They seem ignorant, to me-but a difference of opinion is what causes a horse race.

Funny that you should say that, and immediately follow it up with an attempt to poison the well of discourse...

[microgood]

Evolution is the most scientifically validated theory in history.

Theory being the operative word here. The problem I have with evolution is it cannot explain how we got here. The primordial soup theory is laughable at best.

[Just mythoughts]

Sure doesn't take long to find out where ones heart is.

The old golfer may well be in for a rude awakening.

The "Monkey Trial" was a trigger for me. Learning that judgment was given against what I was told to believe, a "6000" year old earth, "God said so" seemed to make "God" unable to defend "truth". To believe that there was a "Creator" of everything and a bunch of non-believers would be allowed and given authority to teach theories as turth, made who I was taught the Creator was, look helpless.

What I have found is that "science", "just the facts" actually give the WORD credibility.

[general_re]

A true rationalist perspective would limit our statements on what is true to events experienced directly. Statements about what happened billions of years ago must be categorized as hypothesis.

Presumably you regard the actuality of the Civil War as mere "hypothesis" - none of us were around to experience that directly either...

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Creationists criticize the conclusions of scientists while benefiting from the tools (like computers) and the quality of life those same conclusions produce."

That comment cuts both ways. Surely you do not think agonstic or atheist scientists alone have published accurate knowledge throughout history. Both make use of each other's research to some degree. I have to ask, though: What benefit is there in believing the earth is 4.6 billion years old as opposed to 4,000?

[Soliton]

I havn't mentioned primordial soup nor has any other proponent of evolution on this thread.

Protons Neutrons and Electrons make up every thing we know of including rocks and people.

Life is made of protiens constructed from a few amino acids.

Fully formed amino acids are found in carbon meteorites.

Organic chemicals (those originally thought to be created by living things) are found in interstellar clouds.

Apes' genetic code is less than 2% different than humans.

All of these undisputed facts are part of the proof of evolution. Creationist spend all of their time trying to disprove evolution, but never to prove creationism.

[Soliton]

Evolution takes time. Lots of it. By attacking the billion year old earth concept, Creationists attack the opportunity for evolution to occur.

[GatekeeperBookman]

We only re-create ourselves.

We describe what we percieve. The Universe is. It is not our creation. We may not ever even reach the level of understanding at which we might try to re-arrange the furniture.

The universe has no known flaws. At least people in science say they are only looking to complete the big picture-fill in a few missing parts of the puzzle.

Unless it ( & we ) are about to be swallowed by a Black Hole, there are no known flaws ( & that would not necessarily be a flaw, though we might be most unhappy about that ). The Great Plague was not a flaw, nor is Cancer or West Nile Virus. The is flexibility in the system-we use words like uncertainty ( in Physics ) & free-will ( in religion & psychology ). We may even finally settle on some understanding of Creation through Evolutionary processes. If we don't destroy our knowledge base by a cataclismic war or the current Jihad ( Counter-Crusade ) from the East succeeds.

[GatekeeperBookman]

You must not see that I see your remarks ( prior ) as the poison. You insult what we might call religious fanatics ( owing to their lack of logic & blind belief ). You need not do so. That I see as poison.

[microgood]

I havn't mentioned primordial soup nor has any other proponent of evolution on this thread.

I noticed that.

Fully formed amino acids are found in carbon meteorites.

So how do we get to RNA,DNA, life? And why do those amino acids not just decay as Carbon does, but all of a sudden(or even over time) form highly organized and structured chains of DNA? I am looking for that mechanism.

[general_re]

You insult what we might call religious fanatics ( owing to their lack of logic & blind belief ).

You can, of course, cite the post or posts where I have done any such thing.

[Soliton]

Ribosomes

[R. Scott]

You must have missed the "(/sarcasm)".

[MissAmericanPie]

I have a question. Did anyone watch a science show in which the question was asked how a certain type of radiation with a half life of mili-seconds ended up trapped in some types of granite? The rings left by the radiation were clearly evident in the granite and led to the conclusion that the granite formed almost instantaneously.

If so, was the question ever answered?

[Fitzcarraldo]

Presumably you regard the actuality of the Civil War as mere "hypothesis" - none of us were around to experience that directly either...

In that case there is a witness chain extending into that time period, documents, photographs and other evidence. That there was a Civil War can classified as a proven theory from our perspective.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

Creationist spend all of their time trying to disprove evolution, but never to prove creationism.

Think about what you just said. thinking. thinking. There, I just proved creationism to you. See, that wasn't difficult.

Seriously, is it rational to believe we are accidents, and have no purpose? And if it were rational, why is it that evolutionists spend all of their time trying to disprove creation, but never to prove evolution?

[Ichneumon]

Nothing else in the solar system leads one to conclude such a huge date of 4.6 billion years.

You are vastly mistaken.

I'm working on a big project and don't have time to address each of your errors in detail, but just for fun let's look at a few items from your Big List of things that (you claim) "set upper limits much younger than" a few billion years for the solar system:

Earth’s magnetic field is decreasing at an alarming rate.

Wow, that old chestnut again. It has been debunked countless times over the past few decades, but creationists just keep trotting it out again. Yes, the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing. No, it is not decreasing at an "alarming" rate. No, that doesn't "prove" that the Earth must be younger than a few billion years old. The Earth's magnetic field doesn't just keep fading forever, it in fact "rises and falls" in a periodic fashion, and we're currently in one of its waning periods. There is irrefutable geologic evidence for this. Someday perhaps the creationists will finally crack open a textbook and learn a few basic things before they go tearing off on another "magnetic field" rant.

The Grand Canyon could have been carved in just the last few thousand years.

No it couldn't, but no need to quibble -- even if it could have, how exactly is that supposed to "prove" that the Earth can't be very old? Are you somehow under the impression that the Earth itself can't be older than the Grand Canyon? (The same goes for another favorite creationist "proof" about the age of Niagara Falls -- yes, Niagara Falls is indeed of rather recent vintage; but this in no way proves that the Earth itself must not be old.)

The moon and meteorites contain short-lived radionuclides.

...because they have no atmosphere and are exposed to cosmic rays, which form *new* short-lived radionuclides when they hit. This is also where most of the "new" Carbon-14 in the Earth's atmosphere comes from. Again, I invite creationists to try reading a textbook or two before they attempt another "scientific" analysis of something.

Io and Europa are losing a ton of their mass every second.

Presuming this is even true (and creationists have a bad habit of stating "facts" that simply are not the case), this means that Europa, the smaller of the two moons, would have lost a whopping one quarter of one percent (0.0025) of its mass during the last four billion years. I'm sorry, how was this supposed to "lead one to estimate much lower ages"? Why exactly would this "have to be str-r-r-r-r-etched by many orders of magnitude" in order "to fit the 4.6 billion year timeline"? Actually, instead of "leading one to estimate much lower ages", it instead leads me to conclude that creationists don't know how to use calculators.

Io has far more volcanic activity than can be explained by tidal heating.

...which is no problem because "tidal heating" is only *one* of several mechanisms driving volcanic activity. I refer you to that "textbook" thing again...

Europa might have active geyser activity even today.

That's nice. Here's a cookie. Again, there are many mechanisms which contribute to geyser activity even on billion+ year old moons.

Neptune is the farthest large planet but has the strongest winds, and shows evidence of seasonal activity.

Okay, I'll bite -- how do either of these observations (presuming they're true) suggest that Neptune must be "younger" than currently believed? In other words, how would being "younger" help better explain seasonal activity or stronger winds on Neptune than on the other gas giants? Oh, right, it doesn't... Ditto for many other items on your list.

Titan’s surface should be blanketed with half a mile of hydrocarbons by now, but large patches of bedrock ice are found.

Ever hear of a process called "erosion"? It's in those "textbook" thingies... Titan has an atmosphere denser than Earth's, and methane falls as liquid rain. Both would remove hydrocarbon solids from elevated areas and wash them down into lower-lying areas (and into the postulated methane oceans, if they exist), leaving large patches of exposed rock and water ice (which at Titan's temperatures would be permanent as rock itself). "Problem" solved using High School level knowledge. May the creationists someday rise to that level in their analysis.

And so on...

[Soliton]

I will prove evolution to you if you will accept the scientific method as valid.

[sandydipper]

Among others - the 64 thousand dollar question is: Is this a closed or an open universe?

IMHO it's a closed universe.

[R. Scott]

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?

Even in the ancient days, those living near the sea would know the Earth wasn’t flat. I had close to twenty years at sea, and the curve of the Earth is noticeable. There is also the little matter of what is quite easy to observe – the tops of a ship’s mast come into view before the ship. The tops of hills and mountains come into view before the shore. Even a lowly seaman would realize this is due to curvature.