Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
whoa182

Young Earth Creationism

41 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

whoa182

Ok, I found this interesting post by a person on another Forum somewhere els and I found it interesting. It shows that earth was not created 6000 years or whatever. This post is by a person called DIGMANIA over at http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=71

anyway here it is.

The following has been taken from the latest Ozreasons (Australian branch of Reasons To Believe) email newsletter at ozreasons.org It really proves just what nonsense Young Earth Creationism is! It must be hindering many from accepting the gospel in the academic world. YEC needs to be jettisoned from Christian apologetics. It is also testimony to the fact that the Bible should not be used the way YEC use it, that is by counting geneologies and adding the creation week on the end and concluding the age of the earth/universe. The Bible never intended this, it has much more important issues to communicate than the age of the earth.

Tree Rings

Dendochronologists can gain an idea of the climate over the last 10,000 years or so by analysing tree rings that are accumulated on a yearly basis. The basic process (though there are some complicating factors) is a matter of counting annual layers revealing the approximate time period that each layer existed. Wet seasons are characterized by wide layers whereas dry seasons typically produce narrower layers. The Shulman Grove area in California are known to possess living trees exceeding 4,500 years old in addition to dead trees preserved by the cold climate that push the chronology back further than 8,000 years. The layers on these specimens were also cross calibrated with carbon 14 dating. The significance is that we have an independent tool to check the accuracy of radiometric dating. This is significant as many Christians have been told that radiometric dating methods are for a multitude of reasons completely unreliable and entirely untestable – clearly false claims. If these criticisms were actually correct, than it is surely an astounding coincidence to say the least that the tree ring chronology correlates with the carbon 14 dating results. We also have additional data derived from European Oak where the chronology can be extended back to 11,000 years.

It is also important to note that climatic information from tree rings of differing species and different locations are giving similar accounts of the Earth’s climate over the past 10,000 years. Well known historical events such as massive volcanic eruptions can also be calibrated with the tree ring data. This is because these enormous volcanic eruptions ejected so much material into the atmosphere, a mini “nuclear-winter” existed for a number of years resulting in extremely poor plant growth - including crop failure and mass starvation. The recorded years of these events correspond to extremely thin tree rings for these years.

Ref: Pinus Longaeva D.K. Bailey 1970 http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-onlin...in/longaeva.htm and

Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/lorim/good.html

Varve Layers

A varve is a pair of thin layers of sediment that forms in freshwater lakes that tend to freeze over in winter. Typically, one band of the varve is light and composed of sand and organic material (eg pollen) while the second layer is dark and composed of very fine clay particles.

Varves are formed by seasonal variations in sedimentary deposition. The lighter band is laid down during the summer when a greater flow of water from inflowing streams brings coarse, sandy material into the lake. The larger particles settle rather quickly but the tiny clay particles remain in suspension due to the agitation of the lake water caused by the inflowing streams and also by wind. In winter, the lake freezes over and so the effect of the wind is not felt and inflow from streams ceases. Because the water is no longer being agitated, the fine clay particles can slowly settle to the bottom of the lake, right on top of the coarse sand layer. Next summer, when the lake thaws, the cycle begins over. Each varve couplet, therefore, typically represents a single year. One can determine the age of a varve formation by simply counting the number of couplets, just as one can determine the age of a tree by counting its rings.

Varve deposits display great age. The Salido, Castile, and Bell Canyon formations of west Texas contain 260,000 couplets. Hence, this formation is most naturally considered to be 260,000 years old. The famous Green River Shales which span three US states contain about 7.5 million paper-thin couplets.

Dr. H. Kitagawa and his team have established a chronology of varve layers containing diatoms (unicellular algae) in Japan that calibrate the Carbon 14 dating technique back to 45,000 years ago. The spring season layers were recognised by dark coloured clay with white layers due to an increase in diatom growth. Carbon 14 dating (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry was the exact method used) of organic material in the layers has confirmed the accuracy of this dating method to beyond that predicted by most young earth models. It is also important to note that this study revealed similar climate details to European marine sediments of coral dated with Uranium and Thorium methods as well as carbon 14. Their results also were in agreement with the tree ring C-14 results.

Tree-ring data presents a serious problem for young earth/global flood proponents. (Most YECs believe that the large majority, if not all of the earth’s geological record was deposited in around 12 months during Noah’s flood at no more than 5,000 yrs ago.) Varves must give those YECs familiar with them nightmares. How can a global flood that is incomprehensibly catastrophic and haphazard carefully deposit thousands and in some places even millions of very thin and fragile but perfectly alternating and chemically distinct sedimentary layers in an organised fashion that just coincidently happens to correlate with annual seasonal changes? How did the flood insert fluctuating amounts of diatoms into each layer which amazing just happen to correlate with what we would expect from changes in season? But much more amazingly, how did this global flood manage to sort these trillions of diatoms in the correct layers according to the proportion of carbon-14 within their bodies so that modern scientists would be deceived into thinking the varves represented thousands of years of seasonal freshwater lake.

Ref: H. Kitagawa and J. van der Plicht Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production 1997

http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BI...calibration.pdf

Ice Cores in Greenland

There are two ice cores drilled in Greenland called the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP) and the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) both 30 km apart and nearly 3 km deep giving the same paleoenvironmental record back to 110,000 years ago. The ice layers tend to trap tiny bubbles of air, including the impurities that are indicative of volcanic eruptions and other climatic events. An example would be the oxygen isotope ratios of the heavier oxygen-18 to the lighter oxygen-16. As the temperature increases, the heavier isotopes would be more readily precipitated (as part of H2O) than the lighter isotopes and thus the ratio of oxygen isotopes found in air bubbles in the ice provide a signature for past climate changes. Deuterium, also known as Hydrogen-2 is another isotope that provides clues for temperature ranges at each period represented by the respective ice core layers. Studies of CO2 levels in the trapped air bubbles in the ice has enabled scientists to plot the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over recent millennia which is of obvious importance to the earth’s increasing Greenhouse Effect.

Increases in acidity are the hall-mark for volcanic eruptions such as the eruption at Vesuvius in A.D. 79. Evidence for this eruption shows up in the Greenland ice core. Historically documented events like Vesuvius serve as independent tools to date the layers of ice. Though the eruption was less than 2000 years ago and thus not long enough to discriminate between young and old earth creation models, it does provide us with great confidence that the ice layers are accurate recorders of time. Hence the layers that precede A.D 79 to a time of 100,000 years ago can be accepted as accurate.

More extensive though less detailed ice cores were those drilled at the Vostok Station, Antarctica to a depth of more than 3.5 km. Placed in the Antarctica region on the opposite side of the globe, affords an excellent position for strategic sampling of past global climatic trends. The project was a joint initiative of Russia, France and the USA. The snowfall record reaches back to 420,000 years ago, yielding data on dust and sea salt levels, aerosols and global levels of methane and carbon dioxide. Climate details such as oxygen isotope abundances correlate nicely with the GISP2 levels. Some of the age measurements from different research groups are as follows:

Six measurements at 1934 m: • 136,758 years (Sowers)

• 141,804 years (Lorius)

• 137,725 years (Jouzel-1)

• 135,018 years (Jouzel-2)

• 140,243 years (Waelbroeck)

• 135,507 years (Petit)

Five measurements at 2082 m: • 164,433 years (Lorius)

• 155,785 years (Jouzel-1)

• 150,957 years (Jouzel-2)

• 152,239 years (Waelbroeck)

• 151,721 years (Petit)

Four measurements at 2757 m: • 261,787 years (Jouzel-1)

• 242,235 years (Jouzel-2)

• 243,004 years (Waelbroeck)

• 237,975 years (Petit)

One measurement at 3310 m: • 422,766 years (Petit)

As if the evidence was not already strong enough to demonstrate the earth is older than 6,000 years, we can collaborate the Milankovitch astronomical cycles with the climate variations that we observe in ice and marine cores. The earth’s surface records the processes that astronomers predict from variations in eccentricity (where the orbit deviates from circular) every 100,000 years, obliquity (a slight variation in the Earth’s 23.5 degree tilt) every 41,000 years and precession (where the degree of Earth’s angular tilt remains the same only the direction of the axial tilt is altered like the wobbling of a spinning top as it slows down) every 23,000 years. These variations manifest in the form of climatic shifts and can be catalogued in the various ice and sedimentary layers layered down on Earth.

Ref:Sigfús J. Johnsen The Greenland Ice Core Records 2002 http://www.gsf.fi/esf_holivar/johnsen.pdf

Vostok Ice Core NOAA Paleoclimatology Program 1998 http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/ant...tok/vostok.html and

Vostok Time Scales ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/ant...vostok_time.txt

Coral Layers

Like the layers of tree rings coral layers vary in density according to seasonal changes. The unique gift they offer to researches is that they not only present us with annual bands but also daily bands. In other words, for every yearly band found we also detect 365 daily bands. This is an indirect way of telling us that the lengths of each day are 24 hours long.

Astronomers have made measurements using atomic clocks on the rate of deceleration of the rotation period of Earth. The results present a deceleration time of 0.000015 sec per day. Although we would have reason to expect fluctuations in this rate we can estimate that at 10 million years ago the length of a day would have been approximately 200 seconds less. Extrapolating from this figure back we would expect the Devonian period (360 – 410 million years ago) to be characterised by days of 21.8 hours in length or 400 days per year.

Ancient coral layers dated to the Devonian era via thorium 230 and protactinium 231 radiometric methods provide an independent test for the astronomical calculations mentioned. The exciting discovery from ancient coral was that daily growth lines counted between the extreme values of 385 and 410 leaving us with an average for that period that correlates very well with the astronomical methods. Coral from the Pennsylvanian (late Carboniferous: 290 – 325 million years ago) era from two different geographical regions gave 390 and 385 lines per annum. These results imply that the lengths of each day have increased as the earth has slowed down over the 100 million years since the Devonian period and provide further collaborative support for uniformitarian processes.

Ref: John Wells Coral Growth and Geochronometry 1963 http://freepages. genealogy.rootsweb.com/~springport/geology/coral_growth.html

New Discovery

The exceptionally thick Antarctic ice have provided researchers with an opportunity to drill a core 3 km deep into Dome C, high on the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.[1][2][3] According to the report, the earth has experienced 8 ice ages throughout the last 740,000 years. The study confirmed that the obliquity cycle and the eccentricity cycle that occur every 41,000 and 100,000 years respectively have a major influence on climatic conditions. This study reveals even more headaches for a young earth creation model since the core now reaches further back in time than ever before and receives collaboration from various astronomical cycles. This study also supported evidence from prior research that the last 10,000 years of human history (Holocene period) has been exceptionally benign climatically, providing a unique environment for human civilisation to flourish.

[1]Laurent Augustin, et al., “Eight Glacial Cycles from an Antarctic Ice Core,” Nature 429 (2004), 623-628.

[2] Jerry F. McManus, “A Great Grand-Daddy of Ice Cores,” Nature 429 (2004), 611-612.

[3] Gabrielle Walker, “Frozen Time,” Nature 429 (2004), 596-597.

Edited by whoa182

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saucy

What does that say to our faith? It doesn't prove anything. When God created the planet by speaking things into existance, they weren't created as tiny baby plants then allowed to grow. They were created in their prime. The trees were large and already bearing fruit and the animals were already fully grown and Adam and Eve were of child bearing age. God could've created a tree that appeared to be thousands of years old! tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hotoke
When God created the planet by speaking things into existance, they weren't created as tiny baby plants then allowed to grow. They were created in their prime

that would be impossible because the trees would not have rings because it could not grow so creation at the prime is a failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoa182

mabey you been playing to much " BLACK AND WHITE " ?

Im really sorry. BUT THAT IS PURE ***** IGNORANCE and Stupidity if you believe that saucy, LOOK AT THE WORLD AROUND U!.

ahhhhh, I had to get that out.

wow

Edited by whoa182

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
What does that say to our faith? It doesn't prove anything. When God created the planet by speaking things into existance, they weren't created as tiny baby plants then allowed to grow. They were created in their prime. The trees were large and already bearing fruit and the animals were already fully grown and Adam and Eve were of child bearing age. God could've created a tree that appeared to be thousands of years old!

You dont know that... you're just clinging to straws in order to secure your belief. You know as well as I do that thats the crappiest and only response possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saucy

If you say so no.gif

You believe what you want to believe, but according to the creation story, that's the way everything was created. Trees don't grow the exact same amount every year. I have trees in my yard that were dead for almost three years, didn't produce any leaves or grow in size or nothing, but one year they did and have been growing ever since. One year there's a drought, another year there's plenty of water, another has a long winter season. There are a lot of things that prohibit the tree from growing or growing faster one year, yet the tree rings are always the same size. Who's to say that the tree rings mean a year's growth? They've found human skulls with jewelry amongst coal. Does that mean it took millions of years for that coal to form? No. You can look at anything on this planet and there's nothing that takes millions of years of growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hotoke
No. You can look at anything on this planet and there's nothing that takes millions of years of growth

if that woul be true we would not have to worry about our resources running out would we? oil crisis iron crisis.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoa182

You are hilarious. did you skip school too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hotoke
You are hilarious. did you skip school too?

439860[/snapback]

who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoa182

saucy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeking

people didnt just say each ring means one year, they figured it out first

and each ring is not the same size, some are thick some are thin, no matter how far apart they are they still only equal one year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashley-Star*Child

It's older than 6000 years to start with, and this is another attempt to destroy Genesis.

I'm sorry but no amount of 'observance' by science (which is basically ALL it's supposed to do observe) can prove the Earth is millions of years old. They can make as many wild theories as they want, it's flawed. I saw one such case where cabron dating FAILED in related to a cloth which was said to have been around Jeus after the crucifiction. they thought it was paint for starters, but it had BLOOD on it. On top of that, I watched intently as they fumbled about like idiots going over the dating again and again coming up with different results everytime. 'Oh but it must have been dust that changed the date'. It ended up being older than they originally said, and for that matter, cannot prove that it wasn't from Jesus.

How many times does carbon dating fail that you don't hear about? Just like illusionists who created TV shows who make it all seem like *magic* while the mistakes get edited out.

NO AMOUNT OF OBSEVRANCE CAN PROVE THE WORLD HAS BEEN AROUND FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS. Why? Because even THEY can agree PEOPLE haven't been around that long, and on top of that, modern science is only a few hundred years old. Wild claims to make science look smart and more interesting for some imaginative guy who wanted to explain everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashley-Star*Child

On top of that, just because it's *new* doesn't mean it's right. There is more wisdom in ancient texts which describe things that science has only just discovered now than in anything that has been claim by some madman in a labratory. Now, sure, science has discovered alot of things, some of them are right, alot of them are not, which is why they continue to discredit old flawed discoveries in favor of 'new' and again flawed ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoa182

its amazing that all the evidence that has been presented. They dont bring up this evidence to show that the bible and scriptures are wrong. They do it because its their work. And it happens to conflict with what the bible says. A lot times.

People in the old days made very un-educated statements.

Edited by whoa182

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hotoke
I'm sorry but no amount of 'observance' by science (which is basically ALL it's supposed to do observe) can prove the Earth is millions of years old

yes there is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
I saw one such case where cabron dating FAILED in related to a cloth which was said to have been around Jeus after the crucifiction. they thought it was paint for starters, but it had BLOOD on it.

How did it fail, because it didnt say that the cloth dated back to Jesus? That was the point. It was dated back to DaVinci's time period. There was blood on it, but it was miniscule amounts. The actual image was made of red ochre (sp?)

Im off for now... gonna be late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Christopher

-Post removed by request-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Christopher

-Post removed by request-

Edited by Sir Christopher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FreyKade

[qoute]

I don't think the bible was meant to be taken literally. It was definitely meant to be a guide to virtue and love, humility and decency.

how do you get any of that from the killing in the old testement??? that GOD ordered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hotoke
It was definitely meant to be a guide to virtue and love, humility and decency

There are some interesting passages in the bible that say otherwise (Ephesians 6:5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling....)

Subordination of women. (1 Corinthians 11:9 For neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
I'm sorry but no amount of 'observance' by science (which is basically ALL it's supposed to do observe) can prove the Earth is millions of years old.

Observe, measure, calculate....

They can make as many wild theories as they want, it's flawed.

Really? Prove it. So far I've seen people here saying "Yeah well all this dating must be wrong!" and yet they dont seem to be presenting any evidence at all that the Earth is 6000 years old.

'Oh but it must have been dust that changed the date'.

Please, dont change it. Dust has nothing to do with it. However, the original dating was done on a a piece of material from the corner of the cloth. That piece was different than the rest because the cloth was caught in a fire and people tried to repare it. When the actual painted cloth was dated, it dated back to the rainessance.

Oh and BTW, blood turns black after a while. The 'blood' on the cloth is still red.

It ended up being older than they originally said, and for that matter, cannot prove that it wasn't from Jesus.

Can you prove that it was?

How many times does carbon dating fail that you don't hear about?

I remember there was testing done to confirm its accuracy. Out of around 400 tests, less than 10 came back inaccurate.

NO AMOUNT OF OBSEVRANCE CAN PROVE THE WORLD HAS BEEN AROUND FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS. Why? Because even THEY can agree PEOPLE haven't been around that long, and on top of that, modern science is only a few hundred years old. Wild claims to make science look smart and more interesting for some imaginative guy who wanted to explain everything.

*sigh* We cant see the amounts of neutrons present in different elements, yet we can calculate them.

As for the "You werent here for millions of years to observe it"... Likewise, you havent been here for 6000 years to observe that the Earth was created then neither.

On top of that, just because it's *new* doesn't mean it's right.

Just because its old doesnt mean its right neither. Its more along the lines of old, obsolete, inaccurate.

There is more wisdom in ancient texts which describe things that science has only just discovered now than in anything that has been claim by some madman in a labratory.

And why do you think that these things were only noticed once science discovered them? Because the people interpret the texts to mean something completely different that can apply to our world today.

Now, sure, science has discovered alot of things, some of them are right, alot of them are not, which is why they continue to discredit old flawed discoveries in favor of 'new' and again flawed ones.

Alot of them are not rolleyes.gif

Old "discoveries" are not disproven. Thats like saying 1+1=2 is going to be disproven in the future, because we'll find that 1+1=3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyuugaNeji
What I do know, is it is illogical and unscientific to assume that the world is only about 6000 years old, just like it is to assume Jonah was actually in the belly of the whale for a long while and survived. The latter has been proven to be false. Drawing from many numerous sources of science, and much research over the years, it has been easily and rationally demonstrated that the universe is many billions of years old, and so is the Earth.

How do you know that when it says Adam ate an apple and so does Eve, it wasn't just a myth based on real events that took place regarding temptation, which would be spiritual as well and far out from the norm so the majority might not accept it, but which at least would be fair to scentific analysis of history. We don't know that the modern day trance healer and extreme psychic Edgar Cayce's version of Adam and Eve was wrong (spirits hovering above the Earth and deciding to possess the developing creatures to copulate causing original sin creating terrible repercussions for future generations), however we do know that yours is. In this universe, all living things grow and start young (I think).

right.........the story of jonah was not proven to be false. he was in the fish's belly for 3 days and 3 nights. historical fact- a man was swallowed by a shark and 4 days later that shark was caught and they found the guy still alive in it;s belly.

and exactly how has it been demonstrated that the universe is many billions of years old

also adam and eve didn't eat an apple. the bible tells us it was just a fruit. It could have been any thing(pineapple,mango,peach,etc). and it's a myth base on real events.....right.....all things grow and start young.....so this singled celled ameoba that "evolved" where the hell did that come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saucy

First off, thanks Sir Christopher for your comments... thumbsup.gif

Secondly, people have believed the biblical account of creation for thousands of years and only recently has science stepped in to try and change that view. Now I have to bring proof to the table? No, I think you need to have the proof. The only reason why the theory exists that the earth is billions of years old is to support another theory called evolution. The theory needs time in order for it to work out, so the earth has to be billions of years old. What a way to work that out! no.gif

Resouces are being depleted because of the many billions of people on this planet who constantly need those resources. There are instances though of oil being created instantly. The same people who first found the Titanic in the ocean saw near some ocean vent dead plankton that got super heated and became instant petroleum.

I can go on and on with more and more evidence that the earth isn't all that old. I can also prove that any kind of dating is unreliable. They've never dated something more than once and got the same answer every time. It's a proven ideal amongst scientists that when dating something, their prediction about how old is thrown into the equation and they average all their answers together to get one answer. Come on, how accurate is that!

Ashley, even I can prove that the shroud of Turin doesn't belong to Jesus. You would know that if you knew your scriptures. It planely states that when the body was wrapped up, there was a separate napkin wrapped around Jesus' head and the cloth around his body.

Can you prove there was no great flood? That dinosaurs were extinct for 65 million years? I can prove they weren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hotoke

How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know?

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.

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.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18 ) for technical detail.

A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.

Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

The age of the earth has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Even if evolution was somehow shown to be incorrect, it would still not negate the fact that the earth has been dated several times by several independant studies, to around 4.5 billion years. This is completely, totally, absolutely, divorced from evolution.

That an old earth is compatible with evolution is simply part of the preponderance of evidence supporting evolutionary theory. It is not, in anyway, supported by evolution itself. It supports evolution, not vice-versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.