Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Old Is the Earth?
Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 6/05/2003 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

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): 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: 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; origins; youngearth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-238 next last
Continuing to shift the momentum.
1 posted on 09/21/2003 11:20:35 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Elsie; gore3000; AndrewC; jennyp; f.Christian; lockeliberty; RadioAstronomer; LiteKeeper; ...
And Ping again!
2 posted on 09/21/2003 11:23:12 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
beat the ping...tx
3 posted on 09/21/2003 11:25:36 PM PDT by dasboot (Celebrate UNITY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
There is no momentum toward creationism among those who respect reality.

Creationism is hedonism: Believing something because it makes you feel good to believe it.
4 posted on 09/21/2003 11:42:34 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
With all due respect, insofar as I can see, God does not play an explicit role in the formation of our Solar System (not withstanding the Bible)or for that matter our every day lives. I would much rather rely on a 20th or 21 St Century rationalist than a 5000 year old goat herder. But then again, call me close-minded.
5 posted on 09/21/2003 11:44:39 PM PDT by Hoosier-Daddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
There is no momentum toward creationism among those who respect reality.

Yet another nice, false ad hominem to add to my collection.

-The Hajman-
6 posted on 09/22/2003 12:02:44 AM PDT by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Creationism is hedonism: Believing something because it makes you feel good to believe it.

Take some time to get to know your enemy. We tend to be rather friendly, and open to rational discussion.

7 posted on 09/22/2003 12:15:51 AM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
"Creationism is hedonism: Believing something because it makes you feel good to believe it."

My my, aren't you sure of yourself. Care to share your "proof positive" with the rest of us? Seems all the other scientists keep having problems in having to revise their theories.

You may think you know sir, I also think I know. Don't act so pompous in your view.
8 posted on 09/22/2003 12:18:00 AM PDT by txzman (Jer 23:29)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

Thanks to evolution ...

you are sufficiently dumb downed ---

you can go along -- believe all the the liberal tripe - trickery !
9 posted on 09/22/2003 12:56:01 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
There is no momentum toward creationism among those who respect reality.

Yes. Reality is that a 3 billion long strand of double helix DNA just formed in a bubbling pot of primordial soup. I did not know that even evolutionists were still pushing this fantasy, but I guess there are still a few left.
10 posted on 09/22/2003 4:15:45 AM PDT by microgood (They will all die......most of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
How old is the Earth?

Depends. How old is George Clooney? You know it's his world, and we just live in it.

11 posted on 09/22/2003 4:17:38 AM PDT by YourAdHere (Ryan S. goes 2nd on S7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Let's start with the basics.

Can someone explain why there are fossiles of subtropical and tropical life all over the planet ?


12 posted on 09/22/2003 4:24:29 AM PDT by Truth666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
"How Old Is the Earth?" No flesh man knows, and we are not told by our Heavenly Father.
13 posted on 09/22/2003 4:32:05 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
I really dislike these threads. I am a BAC but scientist and have no problem with "a thousand years are like a day". There are many BACs who are not Creationists. What bothers me is we are discounted as not possibly Christian since we do not ascribe to Creationism.

Darwin's God is an excellent book by a believer who brings out an important point. If you go back in time an look at how the whole story of creation has grown more complex with time as well as all science, it shows not a simple God but a complex God well beyond our understanding. Life goes from a simple act into something that is truly miraculous because it should never have happened.

Rare Earth, written by secular scientists, makes the same point but in regard to earth and life. Science shows it cannot happen.

Both books show a God who is in charge of all, because he defies probability and is beyond our comprehension.

All the points that were in the post rely on a false premise that science is frozen at this date. For example- why not dustless, why not random, etc.. Most can be answered by hypothesis but any good scientist will say "We do not know yet." That is what science is all about. Finding answers.

The truth is, God could have created everything one second ago. That would not be rational, so He did not. So when did He do it? We will find out eventually. In the meantime, let us worry more about the creation of a new believer, and not putting things in their way that have no bearing on their eternal soul.
14 posted on 09/22/2003 4:33:25 AM PDT by KeyWest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoosier-Daddy
I find it interesting that you regulate Christians (and presumably Jews, too) to the status of followers of a "5000 year old goat herder". You say your faith is placed in the hands of "20th or 21st Century rationalist(s)". Yet, I do not see where you present any justification for the thoughts of these rationalists within the context of the post. Your post is nothing more than a stream of bitter statements. If your belief system is superior, please tell us why.
15 posted on 09/22/2003 4:48:05 AM PDT by Gwaihir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
And the Earth is flat, at the center of the universe, and everything revolves around us.(/sarcasm)
16 posted on 09/22/2003 4:55:41 AM PDT by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
"For the absolute age, he refers to a 4.567 billion year figure.........."

This figure is interesting as it comes up often with studies of isotopes. It assumes that there were equal amounts of, say U238and U235, created at the beginning (a reasonal assumption, but an assumption none the less) so the ratios of these isotopes still present and their known decay rates give a marker for their supposed date of creation.

All indications are that the earth is very old, certainly more than 10,000 years, and that still doesn't threaten the Biblical record or substantiate the theory of evolution.

17 posted on 09/22/2003 5:09:07 AM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
"How old is the earth?"

The answer has been surmised enough. No human was there to observe its beginning who also is able to report with accuracy how much time has passed since. And even if he were, his report would have to be received with as much faith as anything that purports to be divine revelation.

The question assumes the earth has a beginning. In the end all of us make a leap of faith when we decide whether matter has a beginning or not, let alone the planet we inhabit. I've always wondered r.e. carbon dating whether scientists are measuring the age of a FORM or a SUBSTANCE.

18 posted on 09/22/2003 5:09:27 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew ("Dream deep my three-times perfect ultrateen . . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
So, what are they saying? The earth isn't 4.6By old? There are a lot of rocks, 3.5Byo and there is little disagreement on that. This discussion of the real origin, is one of the first billion years or so and how much does it really matter? Lets say it isn't 4.6b but only 4.4b or 4.3b, does it really negate all the rest? Of course, it could also be 4.7b or 4.8b.

You can talk to me all day about was life created or was it an accident, but the ages of the earth... that is the age of rocks is settled. Get over it.

19 posted on 09/22/2003 5:13:16 AM PDT by cb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
So, the author never says how old he figures the Earth and Solar System are, nor does he really say what he's driving at. There are always going to be unexplained anomalies when you weren't there to see something- it's the same in crime investigation. That didn't stop us from putting OJ, for example, on trial. Is this fellow saying we shouldn't investigate the universe- or what exactly?
20 posted on 09/22/2003 5:15:14 AM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-238 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson