How old is the EARTH>>?

Question

1)space "junk" deposits 14.3 million tons of dust on the moon per year. If the moon were 4.5 billion years old it should have 450 ft. of dust, yet astronauts found less than 3 inches! (=8000 years old) Moon's age =Earth's age
2)1/2 life of earth's magnetic field is 1400 years. Only 10,000 years ago..the earth would've been as strong as a NEUTRON star. For this reason the earth can't be older than 10,000 years.
3) Fossil fuels are contained in high pressures in the earth...study confirms that they couldn't be maintained in this state for more than 10,000 years w/out "leaking"
4)If the earth were "billions" of years old then the original great centrifugal force would have flattened the earth into a pancake!! (earth is losing speed at .0002 seconds per year)

my point is that young-earth creationists do have valid scientific arguments. Comments>>

Answer 1

You are correct!Finally a non-biased person whos purely thinking and using absolute science to come to the knowledge of the truth. Look into why the first space craft to the moon had long legs on it. You'll see more truth and get a good laugh.

Answer 2

Lenear extrapolation of everything is dumb.

If earth is slowing down .00002 cm/ yr or something, it need not be always so.

Moon dust can escape out too, not necessarily will all dust stick to surface, especially due to asteroid hits. The oil was not always in high pressure chambers. They got created and seeped into these chambers over time. Heared of techtonic movements?

Anyway, there are several other evidense pointing to earth's age - carbon dating, fossils - heck, a tyranosaaurus skeleton is more than few million years old.

the creationists dont use science because they dont want to follow through on the scientific thought. They pick up an apparent fact, and pull the scientific thread enough, such that it reaches their pre-formed conclusion. They dont dare ask any more questions, and seek better answers, because they know the answer - from their bible.

I am sure, all of the questions you have raised have an aswer. Its about seeking them, and not giving up at a predetermined point.

Answer 3

1) Space junk does not deposit 14.3 million tons of dust on the moon per year. That was a pre-Apollo worst case estimate that turned out to be wrong.

2) The earth's dipole field oscillates with a period of about 250,000 years as proven by lava flows, potery shards, etc. A given dipole rate of decay can not mindlessly be extrapolated back as if it were linear. Even worse, the aggregate field, which includes the dipole field and the nondipole field shows no decay whatsoever.

3) Don't believe every "study" you read.

4) Geeze, have you never heard of gravity?

Answer 4

It's about four and a half billion years old.

You can use the Bible to prove that the earth is old.
1. The Earth was created by God.
2. The Earth seems to be really old.
3. There's so much evidence for the Earth seeming to be really old, that it would be Deceitful if the Earth weren't really old.
4. God created the Earth. The Deceiver didn't help. If the Deceiver (Satan) had helped create the Earth, then it would have been mentioned in the Bible.
5. Since the Bible doesn't mention the Deceiver helping to create the Earth, then the Earth really is really old.

Answer 5

It is 4.55 billion years old.

1)um: "Although Stassen points out in his FAQ that even many creation science writers have abandoned this argument, it is still popular. Not only does it remain popular on talk.origins, but also with the Creation Research Society (CRS). The CRS has announced its intention to start a ham-radio based project to study meteor encounters with the upper atmosphere, in an expressed effort to revive the extraterrestrial dust argument."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

2)um:There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.


There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988).


Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.

Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#magnetic

3) they do leak

4)you're just crazy.
Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Earth

Answer 6

Dear Patronne
You have got that about right. B4 the
10.000 yr period, earth probably had NO
"Crust" on it . (Check ; Sumerian Age)

Did u know, without da moon , Earth would
not "exist" (liveable i mean) ?

Around 1350 AD the moon was HIT by a
Massive Meteor , chipping off a decent bit,
as witnessed by some Monks in Europe.
(that's true)
It could have shaken the Dust OFF !
(that's speculation) (but possible).

As far as Creationist is concerned, they are
on a more Solid track, than Evolution .
MY only Big question is ; WHO made my
Eyes, Ears , Brains , Heart, Spinal-cord , to
mention a FEW things. Good Luck ....

Orion Man

Answer 7

I love it when people take facts out of context.

Magnetic field half life of 1400 years is mentioned here:

http://www.crystalinks.com/magnetics.html

It has to do with pole reversal, not gradual decrease from the strength of a neutron star, dingle.

Fossil fuels are form by high pressure. And they do leak and shift, and LOOSE PRESSURE during plate techtonic events.

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/fossilfuels.htm

I don't know where you got your space junk onthe moon thing - so I can't address that one.

As far as the earth flattening to a pancake by losing speed - the force of gravity tends to keep mass in space in a sphereical form. "Centrifugal force" (which is a description of certain actions) is not a true force: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/CentrifugalForce.html
and will not work in the way you are suggeting.

There are stars that spin mind-bogglingly fast - and they are not pancake-shaped.

Answer 8

what about fossil evidence that points to a much older Earth? Also the rate at which we lose speed wasn't necesarily a constant so trying to extrapolate back billions of years is subject to huge amounts of error. Where did they say the moon was the same age as the earth?

Answer 9

Well, intelligent, well educated people, say the earth is about 5 to 6 BILLION years old.... On the other hand, the people who believe the Bible say the earth was created 6000 years ago... on a Thursday.!

Answer 10

Around 5 Billion give or take about 500 mil years

Answer 11

Sorry, yet Morgan Freeman is a more effective pro and does more effective kinds of characters. Danny Glover is sturdy, yet has a tendency to stay more effective around the "humorous guy" characters. they're both large actors, yet Morgan takes the lead on the on the spot.