How Old is the Earth?
For particles-to-people evolution to have occurred, the earth would need to be billions of years old. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science presents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36–37: man’s existence is in such a tiny segment at the end of a 5-billion-year time-line that it has to be diagrammatically magnified twice to show up.
On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end. If we took the same 15-inch (39 cm) time-line as does Teaching about Evolution to represent the biblical history of the earth, man would be about 1/1000th of a mm away from the beginning! Also, Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6), which would make sense with the proposed biblical time-line, but is diametrically opposed to the Teaching about Evolution time-line.
This chapter analyzes rock formation and dating methods in terms of what these two competing models would predict.
Man seems to possess an untiring preoccupation regarding the globe on which he resides. Some of this interest is beneficial to man, enhancing his lifestyle. However, some of the preoccupation is indicative of arrogance on man's part. Those who are obsessed with teaching that the earth, man, and every living thing on earth naturally began and through natural selection evolved are engaging in the zenith of gall (Gen. 1; 2). There is particular interest today relative to the age of the earth. Some geophysicists tell us the earth is 4.7 billions years old. Some theologians say the earth is only 6, 000 years old. Beloved, the simple answer regarding the age of the earth is, no man knows the exact age.
The earth is 6,000 years old position. The date 4004 B.C. is found in the marginal notes (Genesis one) of many King James Versions. This date was first placed in the King James Version by James Ussher in 1701. He arrived at this date by adding the lengths of the lives of the patriarchs as given in Genesis 5 and 11. In reality, this dating method is not infallible for a number of possible reasons. As far as the Bible is concerned, we can not date the earth with accuracy. It must be remembered that Genesis presents the earth as being created mature or aged (Gen. 1: 20 ff.).
The earth is 4.7 billions years old view. Scientists have employed a number of methods in trying to arrive at the age of the earth. The rate of erosion, rate of salt accumulation in the ocean, and the rate of decay of certain elements such as uranium, thorium, potassium, and rubidium. All of these methods including the "ore method," "meteorite method," and the dating of fossil remains are unreliable and contain many attendant variables.
There are a growing number of scientists who are concluding the earth is actually relatively young. They have studied population growth, the amount of meteoric dust on the earth's surface, the quantity of nickel in the oceans, and carbon-14 build up. Many of these scientists believe the earth is more in the range of 7, 000 years old. Beloved, one thing we do know is life begets life and creation implies a Creator: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1: 1). In all honesty, there are matters scientists and theologians do not definitively know as to the age of the earth. True science and the Bible, though, do not conflict.
2006-07-31 05:51:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bham 3
·
4⤊
5⤋
Evolution and the Age of the Earth
Introduction:
Most Evolutionists and Slow Creationists believe that the earth is 4,600,000,000 (4.6 billion) years old, while many Creationists believe that the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. At least one of these beliefs is in serious error. The intent of this web site is to examine the assertion that the earth is "billions of years" old and to present a portion of the evidence that points to a much younger age, and to show why the facts of Science demonstrate that a Creator must have been intimately involved with the creation of Life on this planet.
The younger the age of the earth, the more difficult it becomes to believe in evolution. This is because of the Astronomically Great, if not impossible (the number is almost too large to comprehend) "odds" against life spontaneously generating itself and then changing into more and more complex forms without the aid of an outside Intelligence / Creator / God .
"The odds of higher forms of life evolving by chance are about the same as if a tornado swept through a junkyard and assembled a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." 12
Evolutionists attempt to overcome these odds by invoking such things as the "wand of evolution" 13
This magical formula consists of three beliefs:
1) The belief that life began from the random mixing of chemicals without any help from an
outside intelligence.
2) The belief that random mutations were able to produce small beneficial changes which
(over many millions of years) created very innovative and complex structures such as arms,
legs, hands, toes, eyes, ears, wings, and feathers--not to mention the multitudes of complex
internal organs such as a heart/motor, lungs and male and female reproductive organs.
3) The belief that the earth is extremely old.
The third belief is necessary because if the earth is young then there wouldn't be enough time for the millions and millions of beneficial "mistakes" to take place. This is why evolutionists only talk about the "clocks" which supposedly prove that the earth is billions of years old. This is also why they are unwilling to accept or even publicly discuss any of the various clocks that yield young ages for the earth, the solar system, and the universe. For to do so would cast further doubt upon their bankrupt theory. This is also why the Mass Media is afraid to give Creationist Scientists any Airtime. For if they did so -- without editing out much (if not most) of what was said -- then it wouldn't be long before the theory of evolution would cease being taught (as if it were a fact) in public classrooms across this land. Nor would it be long before Scientists and Professors across this land would be apologizing for their part in promoting a bankrupt theory.
2006-07-30 20:04:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by sreenivas k 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Based on extensive and detailed scientific evidence, geologists have determined the age of the Earth to be around 4.55 billion years (4.55x109 years). This age represents a compromise between the oldest-known terrestrial minerals – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – and astronomers' and planetologists' determinations of the age of the solar system based in part on radiometric age dating of meteorite material and lunar samples.
The radiometric age dating evidence from the zircons further confirms that the Earth is at least 4.404 billion years old. Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to the multitudes of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Ca-Al-rich inclusions – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites which are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old, giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of the Earth. It is assumed that the accretion of the Earth began soon after the formation of the Ca-Al-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Since the accretion time of the Earth is not exactly known yet, and the predictions from different accretion models vary between several millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of the Earth is difficult to define.
In the centuries preceding the scientific revolution, the age of the Earth was determined from the accounts of creation by religious authority. Today some religious groups continue to accept only theological accounts regarding the age of the earth, rejecting scientific evidence which contradicts their beliefs.
2006-07-30 15:43:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by vichu_harrypotter 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
2006-07-30 05:21:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by ideaquest 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Some people think it is 4 billion years old (scientists and those with "common sense", others take a biblical point of view and believe it is about 8,000 years old, but they all forget that the earth was formed on Feb 29th in a leap year, so it only ages 1 year for every four, so it's about a billion years old.
2006-07-31 08:13:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Given the fact that, according to the Bible, Adam was created on the sixth day of our planet’s existence, we can determine a biblically based, approximate age for the earth by looking at the chronological details of the human race. This assumes that the Genesis account is accurate, that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour periods, and that there were no ambiguous gaps in the chronology of Genesis.
The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each fathered the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham. By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and adding up the ages provided in Genesis 5 and 11, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years.
What about the billions of years accepted by most scientists today and taught in the vast majority of our academic institutions? This age is primarily derived from two dating techniques: radiometric dating and the geologic timescale. Scientists who advocate the younger age of about 6000 years insist that radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions, while the geologic timescale is flawed in that it employs circular reasoning. Moreover, they point to the debunking of old-earth myths, like the popular misconception that it takes long periods of time for stratification, fossilization and the formation of diamonds, coal, oil, stalactites, stalagmites, etc, to occur. Finally, young-earth advocates present positive evidence for a young age for the earth in place of the old-earth evidences which they debunk. Young-earth scientists acknowledge that they are in the minority today but insist that their ranks will swell over time as more and more scientists reexamine the evidence and take a closer look at the currently accepted old-earth paradigm.
Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven. Whether 6000 years or billions of years, both viewpoints (and everything in between) rest on faith and assumptions. Those who hold to billions of years trust that methods such as radiometric dating are reliable and that nothing has occurred in history that may have disrupted the normal decay of radio-isotopes. Those who hold to 6000 years trust that the Bible is true and that other factors explain the “apparent” age of the earth, such as the global flood, or God’s creating the universe in a state that “appears” to give it a very long age. As an example, God created Adam and Eve as fully-grown adult human beings. If a doctor had examined Adam and Eve on the day of their creation, the doctor would have estimated their age at 20 years (or whatever age they appeared to be) when, in fact, Adam and Eve were less than one day old. Whatever the case, there is always good reason to trust the Word of God over the words of atheistic scientists with an evolutionary agenda.
http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk1vJ7BN0Xw
2015-04-21 09:50:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by The Lightning Strikes 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's exactly 2 years older than it was on this date two years ago.
Of course that is a ridiculous answer. There is no way to ever know EXACTLY how old the earth is.
There are only educated guesses based on observations and assumptions.
2006-07-30 13:58:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by idiot detector 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
he generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods).
2006-07-30 20:37:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Ashish B 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
I have a MAJOR problem with all of these answers. The earth is really only 6,019 years (and I do have common sense, Thin Kaboudit.)
2015-01-14 02:28:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Very old
2006-07-30 04:36:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋