Age of the earth?

[Glee]

Yay new thread. Also, another one about the age of the earth
Looking over the results of other threads, it seems that the defining point of the argument for both sides is the age of the earth. Sort of a global flood verses millions of years sediment buildup.

If the Earth is proven to be millions of years old, and the sediment has built up over time, then the fossils found would seem to imply that evolution happened, as they seem to be structured in an order of complexity, development over time, etc.

If the Earth is only thousands of years old, then fossil evidence is irrelevant because the flood was the sole creator of most of the fossils, and they were deposited in their consecutive layers due to how long they would float for/how easily they mixed with the liquidfied layers of the ground during the flood.

Without fossil evidence, and without proof that the earth has had millions of years of existance, evolution cannot be proven. If the earth is in fact millions of years old, and the fossil record is indeed correct, then creationism as it currently stands would be invalidated as well.

SO: Is there a single piece of evidence that comprehensively proves that a global flood happened / did not happen? Is there a lay-man, easy to identify, unrefutable piece of evidence that can be used to show the age of the earth?


I always thought that underground salt deposits were a great proof of a old age earth. Salt was the leftover from an evaporated sea, which was then covered with subsequent layers of sediments, etc.

Case in point: the Michigan Basin Salt mines. See http://www.saltinstitute.org/mich-1.html for some fairly straightforward pictures about how the michigan salt mines were supposedly formed, and how many layers of sediments are layered on top of it. Note the size, shapes and locations. (And http://www.beg.utexas.edu/indassoc/agl/agl_if.html for some nifty animations of salt in general)

It is interesting to note that there are 6 different layers of salt in the area, meaning at 6 different times through history there inland seas at this location, each of which subsequently evaporated.

The creationist answer to salt deposits, at least by Walt Brown ( http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... view7.html ) also involves evaporation, however, only part of the sea is evaporated and the salt is precipatated due to the water becoming superstaurated. This "thick pasty" precipetate is then buried under heavier sediments(!) during the flood.

I don't see how this could lead to multiple layers of salt forming, nor why the salt precipatate would even form a layer, much less 6 differernt ones in this particular area alone, whilst the majority of other areas have no salt deposits at all. A global flood I would have thought using this model would no doubt have had a fairly even distribution of salt deposits.

The locations of salt deposits are a telling factor that it was not laid down in a global flood - as (from the first link) clearly shows:


Actually, looking back at that, im not sure if its lay-man enough. Any other simple irrefutable examples for/against?

[Rob]

It [The Urantia Book] indicates that Earth is right at 1 billion years old.

Not to pick on you Woody, really, but that is not factually correct. The Urantia Book, in describing the origin of our solar system, states the following:

4,500,000,000 years ago the enormous Angona system began its approach to the neighborhood of this solitary sun. The center of this great system was a dark giant of space, solid, highly charged, and possessing tremendous gravity pull. (655.9)

Scientists have long since determined the age of the earth based on studying our solar system, for the age of our solar system and the earth are the same. So, per the internal dating of the papers (1934/35) of the Urantia Book the earth is said to be 4.5 billion years old. Of course, the Urantia Book was published in 1955, so this would be the conservative date to use for when it made this claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

These rocks, these bones, these fossil ferns, and shells, shall yet be touched with beauty and reveal the secrets of the book of earth to humans.

-- Alfred Noyes, 1925

All of this story is graphically told within the fossil pages of the vast "stone book" of world record. And the pages of this gigantic biogeologic record unfailingly tell the truth if you but acquire skill in their interpretation. Many of these ancient sea beds are now elevated high upon land, and their deposits of age upon age tell the story of the life struggles of those early days. It is literally true, as your poet has said, "The dust we tread upon was once alive."

-- The Urantia Book p., 671.5

The dating of the earth is intimately tied to the dating of our solar system, for our earth was created at the same time and from the same mass as our solar system. The history of how science determined the age of the earth makes for an interesting story. Based on different methods scientists have proposed ages for the earth ranging from a few m.y. old to 8,000 m.y. old. For example, in 1921 H. N. Russell proposed an upper and lower age for the earth of between 2,000 - 8,000 m.y. old based on the decay of U to Pb in the crust. In 1927 in his book <i>The Age of the Earth: An Introduction to Geological Ideas</i>, Homes revised Russell's calculation and came up with an age of just over 3,000 m.y. for the earth. Around the period of the 1930s, we can see, the question of the age of the earth was a work in progress so to say.

Much that we know about the origin and evolution of our solar system and the age of the earth was learned by studying the rock samples brought back from the moon or meteorites. The reason these source are important is because they are not subject to the same tectonic forces that have churned the surface of the earth to the point that the oldest rocks going back to the origin have long since been lost. Since the moon and meteorites are not subject to these forces, they are more accurate measures of the origin of our solar system, and hence the age of the earth too. Scientists from all over the world have studied these rocks; it was the dating of these rocks that largely confirmed the 4.5 Ga (billion) age of the earth that the Urantia Book gives for the age of the earth.


It is my assessment that the age of the earth would be considered known information as of the 1953 date below, despite the fact that scientists were still debating the issue and working out the exact methods that would give them the most reliable approximation for the age of the earth during the 1930s and 1940s. The scientist/historian Steven G. Brush shows in Transmuted Past when the number of 4.5 m.y. was formally established as the most reliable estimate and made public.

While reading Transmuted Past, by Stephen G. Brush (1996), I came across the following on page 82:

Although some scientists pointed out that the available data did not exclude a value for the age of the Earth as high as 5000 m.y. the Holmes-Houtermans value of 3000 to 3400 m.y. was generally accepted until 1953. In that year a group of scientists at the University of Chicago and the California Institute of Technology reported that the abundances of the radiogenic lead isotopes in some meteoritic material were significantly lower than the figures previously considered "primeval" in estimating the age of the Earth. The ratio for the four isotopes was found to be 1 : 9.4 : 10.3 : 29.2. Moreover, the ratio of uranium to lead in these meteorites was extremely low, so little if any of the present abundance of 206Pb and 207Pb could be attributed to decay or uranium since the formation of the meteorite. It seemed reasonable to suppose that this material was much less affected by chemical differentiation processes than minerals found in the Earth's crust, so that these values were the most appropriate ones to use for the abundances at the time of formation of the Earth.
Results based on these data were announced in September 1953 by C. C. Patterson (1953): The minimum age of the Earth is "about 4.5 billion years and is probably somewhat older." Friedrich Houtermans (1953) published a similar result based on the same data soon after:

Age of the Earth = 4500 +- 300 m.y.

By 1956 Patterson thought enough data were available to clinch the argument for the 4500 m.y. age. (Brush 1996, vol 2: 82-3)

In footnote 33 on page 82, Brush states:

Patterson's original publication appeared in a volume that was not widely available and hence is either not cited at all or cited in a rather confusing way by later workers. The abstract of a paper presented by Patterson, Tilton, and Inghram at the GSA meeting in Toronto, November 9-11, 1953, mentions ages "greater than 4 billion years" (Patterson et al. 1953b); the headline of a report in Chemical and Engineering News (1953) boldly asserts: "Earth's age: 4.6 Billion Years."

[T]he oldest well-studied rocks on Earth are metamorphosed supracrustal rocks that are intruded and enveloped by only slightly younger granitoids. The oldest of these are found at Isua in western Greenland, where two sedimentary units and a mafic intrusive body have been dated ... at 3.7—3.8 Ga….

It is known from other evidence to be discussed that the Earth's age is most probably between 4.5 and 4.6 Ga, yet the oldest rocks found on Earth are only about 3.8—3.9 Ga. What happened to the rocks that represent the first two-thirds to three-fourths of a billion years of Earth's history? The answer to this question is not really known—there are only speculations and possibilities. One possibility is that during that period of Earth’s history not only was the first continental crust forming, it was also being vigorously recycled and regenerated. Thus, the earliest crustal rocks may have been consumed by recycling into the primitive mantle almost as fast as they were generated. A second possibility arises from the observation that the Moon and, by inference, the Earth were subjected to intense bombardment by large meteorites from the time of their initial formation to about 3.8 Ga. This bombardment occurred because the planets were still sweeping up huge masses of material from their orbital paths. Perhaps the bombardment was sufficiently intense to obliterate the first crustal rocks. A third possibility is that the record of the Earth’s early history exists somewhere but has not been found. The discovery of zircon grains 4.0—4.3 Ga old in sedimentary rocks from Earth’s earliest history may yet be discovered. The correct reason for the absence of the most ancient rocks may well be some combination of the above.

The absence of known rocks that represent the first two-thirds to three- fourths of a billion years of Earth’s history is probably due to destruction owing to vigorous crustal recycling, intense meteoritic bombardment, lack of discovery, or some combination thereof. But whatever the reason for the missing record on Earth may be, we can learn much about the history and age of the Earth by examining the evidence from more primitive bodies in the Solar System, in particular the Moon and meteorites. (Dalrymple 1991: 190-192)

Definite volcanic action dates from these times. The internal heat of the earth continued to be augmented by the deeper and deeper burial of the radioactive or heavier elements brought in from space by the meteors. The study of these radioactive elements will reveal that Urantia is more than one billion years old on its surface. The radium clock is your most reliable timepiece for making scientific estimates of the age of the planet, but all such estimates are too short because the radioactive materials open to your scrutiny are all derived from the earth's surface and hence represent Urantia's comparatively recent acquirements of these elements. (Urantia Book 659: 2)

This entire age was characterized by frequent and violent storms. The early crust of the earth was in a state of continual flux. Surface cooling alternated with immense lava flows. Nowhere can there be found on the surface of the world anything of this original planetary crust. It has all been mixed up too many times with extruding lavas of deep origins and admixed with subsequent deposits of the early world-wide ocean. (Urantia Book 661: 5)

The trips to the Moon by the Apollo astronauts were surely the greatest feats of engineering and exploration in the history of humankind. In addition to their technical and spiritual benefits, the manned lunar missions had significant scientific worth, for they gave scientists, for the first time, an exciting opportunity to study rock samples collected from another planet. (Dalrymple 1991: 193)

One of the most significant scientific benefits of the Apollo program was the return of samples of rock and soil for study by Earth-bound scientists. Nine missions, six from the United States and three from the USSR, returned a total of nearly 382 kg of samples. This priceless material consists of crystalline rocks, breccias, and soil, the later in the form of both scooped samples and cores, from a variety of geological environments. (Dalrymple 1991: 212)

Moon rocks are not exactly like Earth rocks and much has been made of the differences. Although these differences are important, the overall similarity of Earth and Moon rocks is equally worthy of note. Contrary to the impression conveyed by many pre-Apollo films and television series, there are no totally new or weird types of rocks in the lunar sample collection. The lunar rocks include both crystalline igneous rocks and impact breccias. Virtually all of the lunar rock types have their terrestrial analogs, albeit not necessarily in the same abundances. (Dalrymple 1991: 213)

The radiometric data, including both rock and model ages, show clearly that the moon is at least 4.5 Ga in age. (Dalrymple 1991: 256)

Actually, friends, I am no expert. I am just a student who enjoys learning along the Paradise journey. McCullock, I am not ignoring your fair and thoughtful questions. They deserve a thoughtful answer, and today is my daughter's birthday, and I am afraid that takes precedence over your questions, so please be patient with me. The only reason I was able to answer this question was because the material was readily available from a two year study I just completed on the history of the idea of continental drirft proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1924.

Also, I cannot communicate with any of the pms and have questions before I start posting regularly which I need answered. And, I don't even know which thead to answer you in, for I want to abide by the rules of this forum, and that is not the topic of this thread, which is the "Age of the Earth." At this time the threads dealing with these questions look more like "discussion" threads rather than topical-debates (in the best and most honorable sense of the word).

Peace,

Rob

Some excellent sources for this study regarding the question of the age of the earth and how it was determined, see:

Dalymple, Brent G. (1994) The Age of the Earth. Stanford University Press.

Brush, Stephen G. (1996) A History of Modern Planetary Physics. Vol. 1-3. Transmuted Past: The Age of the Earth and the Evolution of the Elements from Lyell to Patterson. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Lewis, Cherry (2000) The Dating Game: One Man's Search for the Age of the Earth. Cambridge University Press.

Burchfield, Joe D. (1990) Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth. University of Chicago Press.

[Woody]

Rob,

the 4 & 1/2 billion year figure you quoted from page 655 was the beginning of the process of the formation of our planetary system. Not the formation and recognition date of this planet. You should have turned the page and read some more.

page 660

"1,000,000,000 years ago is the date of the actual beginning of Urantia history. The planet had attained approximately its present size. And about this time it was placed on the physical registry of Nebadon and given its name Urantia.

For those reading but not already knowing, Nebadon is the name of the Local Universe to which our planetary system belongs.

[Rob]

The 4 & 1/2 billion year figure you quoted from page 655 was the beginning of the process of the formation of our planetary system. Not the formation and recognition date of this planet.

Liquids and gases forget, but rocks remember.

The topic of this thread is "The Age of the Earth?" It certainly is not the date our planet was put on a purported registry. You are confusing a scientific question, and how it is factually answered through the science of planetary physics and the use of the Radiometric Clock, which dates the early formation of our Solar System and its planets from the primordial gaseous hydrogen mass, which once it commenced cooling started the Radiometric Clock ticking, which in turn makes it possible for science to discover and tell us the Solar System, meteorites, and planets, including the Moon and Earth, are ~4.5 billion years old.

The Urantia Book, as a matter of fact, states that the primordial gaseous hydrogen mass which was the origin of our Solar System was created and commenced cooling 4.5 billion years ago; this agrees with modern science. While the exact method, the Chamberlin Planetismal Hypothesis is no longer accepted by the scientific community in general (although it is being reconsidered by some scientists, and new discoveries, such as rocks from Mars or other planets, may reconfirm this theory), the idea that our Solar System, its meteorites, Moon and Earth, and other planets had an origin in the same primordial mass is an accepted hypothesis:

The fact that the Earth, moon and meteorites all have very similar ages strongly supports the hypothesis that the whole Solar System formed at the same time from the same material. (Lewis, p. 230)

Just for the sake of argument, let us imagine we would take a chunk of the rock which you refer to above in your 1 billion year old date, and measure it using the Radiometric Clock. The date given would not be 1 billion years, but 3.8 billion years. You see, once the primordial liquids and gases started to cool, to become rocks, the Radioactive Clock started ticking, and behold the “rocks remember.”

Ask any geologist how old the Earth is and the odds are very good that he or she
will provide very close to 4.54 Ga. This number comes not from direct radiometric
dating of lunar rocks or meteorites but from a model that describes the evolution
of lead isotopes in isolated systems, a model that can be applied quite successfully
to meteorites, the Earth, and the Solar System. (Dalrymple, p. 305)

To insist that the scientific age of the Earth is 1 billion years old upon the basis of a statement of when the Earth was put on the “physical registry,” of Nebadon (a claim that is based upon your belief about the Urantia Book) is not only to misunderstand the scientific nature of the question what is the “Age of the Earth?”, and how what the Urantia Book says actually relates to scientific fact, but like insisting that the Earth is 4000 years old based upon adding up genealogies of the Old Testament.

[Geoff]

So how do you KNOW that it is there? You've never been there. So how do you KNOW that it's there? Does this question-reasoning sound absurd? Why? Some folks demand scientific proof ! Well to the individual scientist....the pure rules of science might suggest that the scientist must be able to reliably and demonstratably be able to prove things to himself (herself). So where does ordinary reason come into to play into this equation? To what extent are you willing to "trust" or acceed to the works and efforts of others to "borrow" their work and accept things as being so?

You see, the leading scientific community of the day (back in the day). once declared that the Earth was flat Uh.....they were wrong wern't they? So what is yor explanation now for willingness to accept the scientific work of others without proving their [ claims ] for yourself?

In the Tokyo case, Bob of Tennessee is compelled to accept contemporary accounts of its factual existence even though Bob of Tennessee has never been there himself. And Bob would be correct in doing so for Tokyo does in fact exist.

Interesting how we can agree to accept the fact-truth work of others in one case wheras in the next case over some are very quick to poo poo stuff off as " show me proof gall darnit "

Curious


Learn well my friends, thanks

Woody

:censored:

](*,) Scientists NEVER AT ANY STAGE EVER BELIEVED THE WORLD WAS FLAT.

Nearly no one ever believed it, apart from either those very primative, isolated or those of some kind of overzealous religious persuasion. And thus it is kind of ironic that you brought it up in this context.

From Wikipedia:

The Earth's circumference was estimated around 240 BC by Eratosthenes, who knew about Syrene (now Aswan) in Egypt where the sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice and used geometry to come up with a circumference of 252,000 stades, which, depending on the estimate of the unit stadia, is within 2% and 20% of the actual circumference, 40,008 kilometres.

The myth that Christopher Columbus's sailors feared they would fall off the edge of the world is false: they were understandably uncertain about a voyage into the unknown, and were also worried that food supplies would run out.

There is evidence that the round Earth was accepted by many Christians. For example, Emperor Theodosius II of the Byzantine Empire placed the globus cruciger (which depicts the Earth as round) on his coins.

However, the antipodes (thought to be separated from the Mediterranean world by the uncrossable torrid clime) were difficult to reconcile with the Christian view of a unified human race descended from one couple and redeemed by a single Christ. Consequently, some of the Church Fathers questioned their existance and even the roundness of the Earth. Saint Augustine (354-430) wrote:

"Those who affirm [a belief in antipodes] do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the Earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the Earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men. For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man." (De Civitate Dei, 16.9)

The only people that believed the world was flat were some biblical literalists.
The myth that Christopher Columbus's sailors feared they would fall off the edge of the world is false.
Looks like YOU have been trusting the wrong source.

EDIT: heck, even http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html has something about it.

[Grumpy]

Geoff

The only people that believed the world was flat were some biblical literalists.

It's deja vu all over again. TheCSBS/ID crowd are the same type. They were wrong then, they are wrong now.

Grumpy

[Woody]

Ascertaining the age of our of planet should be referrenced by the the time in which the planet became a planet. Earlier periods of formation....going back to the first whiffs of coalescing space dust and gases does not a planet make. The question was the age of the earth and not how much more before that the earth started to form out of primordial matter. These occurances can only be reported by witnessing persons or entities that were there to witness such events. I wasn't there. You wern't there. The only records of these events existent on our world today appear in the Urantia Book.

A question was asked. I gave an answer. That's what happens on this website. A big happy-fun Q& A session. No one is being forced to accept anybody's answer to anything here. Opinions and viewpoints are being expressed.

But back to actually recognized space rocks as opposed to what came before the recognized rock......when somebody asks you how old you are, what do you tell them? Do you give them your age based upon the day you were officially recognized as a human being...ie the day of your birth? Or do you referrence that back to the day, or thereabouts, that you were conceived?

[McCulloch]

Ascertaining the age of our of planet should be referrenced by the the time in which the planet became a planet. Earlier periods of formation....going back to the first whiffs of coalescing space dust and gases does not a planet make. The question was the age of the earth and not how much more before that the earth started to form out of primordial matter.

If you look carefully at the opening post, the question is not so much about the age of the earth but the order of magnitude of the age of the earth. Some creationists claim that the earth is only several thousand years old. Science disproves that claim and shows that the earth is orders of magnitude older than literalist creationists claim.

These occurances can only be reported by witnessing persons or entities that were there to witness such events. I wasn't there. You wern't there.

This is why we must use science. We look at the evidence and evaluate what that evidence tells us.

The only records of these events existent on our world today appear in the Urantia Book.

No true. The Urantia Book is not the only revealed creation myth. There are many others, including the Bible.

A question was asked. I gave an answer. That's what happens on this website. A big happy-fun Q& A session. No one is being forced to accept anybody's answer to anything here. Opinions and viewpoints are being expressed.

Opinions and viewpoints are not entirely useless on a debating forum. They provide avenues where we might seek evidence. But opinions and viewpoints, by themselves, are entirely useless for debate without evidence, reason and logic.

But back to actually recognized space rocks as opposed to what came before the recognized rock......when somebody asks you how old you are, what do you tell them? Do you give them your age based upon the day you were officially recognized as a human being...ie the day of your birth? Or do you referrence that back to the day, or thereabouts, that you were conceived?

Good point. However, literalist creationists narrow that range of options to a specific six day period.

[Grumpy]

Woody

As scientists we date the age of the Earth by the radioactive decay of certain isotopes, mainly of lead but there are others as well. These isotopes measure the length of time that has elapsed since the Earth cooled enough for those isotopes to solidify in situ. This is considered the "Birthday" of the Earth and was 4.5 billion years ago. All applicable isotope dating methods(more than 40) agree within +-5%. Just as counting the rings of a living tree indicates it's age the isotope ratios indicate the age of the Earth since it cooled. Like forensic evidence at a crime scene, dating by these methods is reliable, repeatable and is based on well understood principles of science.

As to the Urantia Book, it too(like the Bible), is at best hearsay or eye witness evidence and at worst pure fantasy. Eye witness testimony, as any prosicutor will tell you, is the least reliable testimony admissable in court. Unless a witness is a trained observer(policeman or detective, etc.) it is rare for any two eyewitnesses to agree on what they saw or the order of events, especially in stressful circumstances. Also, the more time passes between the events and the testimony(writing) the poorer the accuracy of that testimony. I understand the Urantia Book was writen in the 40's or 50's several billion years after the fact so, at least in my judgement(and for my purposes) it would have little or no value as an accurate account of events.

Grumpy

[Woody]

Hiya Grumpy,

you- The UB is at best hearsay

No the claim here is that the UB is a information work of revealed truth, which contains facts as well.

You will have to check out this book and read it for youself in order for you to know.

And the book was released to the public in 1955. It was fromulated and brought here earlier in the century, mainly in the 1930's.

No I can't prove anything to you other than the fact of the existance of this book. Which is a real book that you can go to a library or bookstore and lay your hands on.

One perhaps should try and keep in mind the apparently overall consideration in play at this website which is "Debating Chritianity and RELIGION"

Constantly harping on prove this or prove that involving religion kind of seems something like an oxymoron doesn't it?

Why would faith-less people even want to spend any time at all hanging out on a religious website anyway?

[Scrotum]

Why would faith-less people even want to spend any time at all hanging out on a religious website anyway?

To enlightened people whom actually believe these silly things.

I will give you a simile to why this is something that should be done:

There is a country* in the world that believes in a God, they have a Book saying they are the chosen people and everyone should die that do not do what they say. They start a war trying to kill everyone else........


See the point here? THATS why.......





*Lets call it United States...