How old is the earth? First published in Refuting Evolution , Chapter 8 Evolutionists fallaciously think that billions of years of time makes particles-to-people evolution possible. 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— The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6, years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end.
How Old Is the Earth?
Are There Gaps in the Genesis Genealogies? Many view the original New Answers Book as an essential tool for modern discipleship. Both of these books answer such questions as: Can natural processes explain the origin of life? Can creationists be real scientists?
Radiocarbon dating (old-earth vs. young-earth methods/assumptions). Content and Outline Make use of the next outline when writing your paper. Each point on the below outline should be a separate section (through the section heading, as specified) within your paper.
Both old earth creationism and young earth creationism seek to solve the apparent conflict between science and the Bible in regard to the age of the earth. What is the apparent conflict? If the book of Genesis is interpreted strictly literally, it seems to indicate that the earth and the universe are around 6, years old. In contrast, various scientific dating methods place the age of the earth around 4. The options to solve the apparent conflict are as follows: Neither old earth creationism nor young earth creationism teaches that the Bible is wrong.
Old earth creationists believe a strictly literal approach is not the correct way to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. Young earth creationists interpret Genesis 1—2 as a literal, historical account of how God created the universe. Young earth creationists question why, if the rest of Genesis is historical, should the first two chapters be interpreted differently? Young earth creationists contend that the scientific data supporting a billions-of-years-old universe is being interpreted incorrectly.
They view old-earth arguments developed by naturalistic scientists as primarily being a defense for Darwinian evolution. They contend that the dating methods are flawed, at best, and are implemented by scientists with bias, presuppositions, and agendas. Old earth creationists view the scientific dating methods as being reasonably accurate and therefore accept that the earth and the universe are truly old.
Dating Fossils – How Are Fossils Dated?
Everything Worth Knowing About Scientific Dating Methods This dating scene is dead. The good dates are confirmed using at least two different methods, ideally involving multiple independent labs for each method to cross-check results. Sometimes only one method is possible, reducing the confidence researchers have in the results. Methods fall into one of two categories:
Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early s. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today is about%.
The Radiometric Dating Game Radiometric dating methods estimate the age of rocks using calculations based on the decay rates of radioactive elements such as uranium, strontium, and potassium. On the surface, radiometric dating methods appear to give powerful support to the statement that life has existed on the earth for hundreds of millions, even billions, of years.
We are told that these methods are accurate to a few percent, and that there are many different methods. We are told that of all the radiometric dates that are measured, only a few percent are anomalous. This gives us the impression that all but a small percentage of the dates computed by radiometric methods agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found, and that all of these various methods almost always give ages that agree with each other to within a few percentage points.
Since there doesn’t seem to be any systematic error that could cause so many methods to agree with each other so often, it seems that there is no other rational conclusion than to accept these dates as accurate.
How Science Figured Out the Age of Earth
Consider also the most popular explanation offered for the photo right , that a concretion formed around an s-era hammer as minerals precipitated out of the surrounding limestone. From Adam until Real Science Radio , in only generations! Another paper, in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology Eugenie Scott ‘s own field on High mitochondrial mutation rates , shows that one mitochondrial DNA mutation occurs every other generation, which, as creationists point out , indicates that mtEve would have lived about generations ago.
That’s not so old! As our List of Not So Old Things this web page reveals, by a kneejerk reaction evolutionary scientists assign ages of tens or hundreds of thousands of years or at least just long enough to contradict Moses’ chronology in Genesis. However, with closer study, routinely, more and more old ages get revised downward to fit the world’s growing scientific knowledge.
We now know that the earth is approximately billion years old and that there have been living things on our planet for at least billion years. Modern Methods of Dating the Earth Modern methods of dating the earth and the major events in the evolution of life depend on .
These formations may have resulted from carcass burial in an anoxic environment with minimal bacteria, thus slowing decomposition. Stromatolites Lower Proterozoic Stromatolites from Bolivia , South America Stromatolites are layered accretionary structures formed in shallow water by the trapping, binding and cementation of sedimentary grains by biofilms of microorganisms , especially cyanobacteria. While older, Archean fossil remains are presumed to be colonies of cyanobacteria , younger that is, Proterozoic fossils may be primordial forms of the eukaryote chlorophytes that is, green algae.
One genus of stromatolite very common in the geologic record is Collenia. The earliest stromatolite of confirmed microbial origin dates to 2. The most widely supported explanation is that stromatolite builders fell victims to grazing creatures the Cambrian substrate revolution , implying that sufficiently complex organisms were common over 1 billion years ago.
Factors such as the chemistry of the environment may have been responsible for changes. Cyanobacteria as well as extremophile Gammaproteobacteria are thought to be largely responsible for increasing the amount of oxygen in the primeval earth’s atmosphere through their continuing photosynthesis. Cyanobacteria use water , carbon dioxide and sunlight to create their food. A layer of mucus often forms over mats of cyanobacterial cells.
In modern microbial mats, debris from the surrounding habitat can become trapped within the mucus, which can be cemented by the calcium carbonate to grow thin laminations of limestone.
Christianity In America Millions of Years? The Bible says the world is about six thousand years old. But it seems like everything we learn from science tells us the world is billions of years old and the dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago. Who is telling the truth? What are the facts? Is a 6, year age for the earth based on different facts than a billion year age for the earth?
Jun 05, · We have been told that dating methods, such as the rates of decay of radioactive elements, force an honest observer to an old-Earth conclusion. The problems with this “evidence” are many (see DeYoung, ). One of the most glaring problems with such reasoning is that it is based on assumptions that have proven to be incorrect.
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space. By dating the rocks in the ever-changing crust, as well as neighbors such as the moon and visiting meteorites, scientists have calculated that Earth is 4. How old are your rocks? Several attempts to scientifically date the planet have occurred over the past years. Scientists attempted to predict the age based on changing sea levels, the time it took for Earth or the sun to cool to present temperatures, and the salinity of the ocean. As science progressed, these methods were proven to be unreliable; for instance, the rise and fall of the ocean was shown to be an ever-changing process rather than a gradually declining one.
In an effort to calculate the age of the planet, scientists turned to the rocks that cover its surface. However, because plate tectonics constantly changes and revamps the crust, the first rocks have long since been recycled, melted down and reformed into new outcrops.
Everything Worth Knowing About … Scientific Dating Methods
Senior research scientist Alexander Cherkinsky specializes in the preparation of samples for Carbon testing. He directed the pretreatment and processing of the dinosaur bone samples with the Accelerator Mass Spectrometer, though he did not know the bones were from dinosaurs, and he signed the reports.
Carbon dating at this facility is certainly the very best. But in , someone told the director of the facility, Jeff Speakman, that the Paleochronology group was showing the Carbon reports on a website and YouTube and drawing the obvious conclusions. So when he received another bone sample from the Paleochronology group, he returned it to sender and sent an email saying: The scientists at CAIS and I are dismayed by the claims that you and your team have made with respect to the age of the Earth and the validity of biological evolution.
Radiometric Dating and Creation Science. The topic of radiometric dating has received some of the most vicious attacks by young earth creation science theorists. However, none of the criticisms of young earth creationists have any scientific merit. Radiometric dating remains a reliable scientific method.
Slowly and painstakingly, geologists have assembled this record into the generalized geologic time scale shown in Figure 1. This was done by observing the relative age sequence of rock units in a given area and determining, from stratigraphic relations, which rock units are younger, which are older, and what assemblages of fossils are contained in each unit. Using fossils to correlate from area to area, geologists have been able to work out a relative worldwide order of rock formations and to divide the rock record and geologic time into the eras, periods, and epochs shown in Figure 1.
The last modification to the geologic time scale of Figure 1 was in the s, before radiometric dating was fully developed, when the Oligocene Epoch was inserted between the Eocene and the Miocene. Although early stratigraphers could determine the relative order of rock units and fossils, they could only estimate the lengths of time involved by observing the rates of present geologic processes and comparing the rocks produced by those processes with those preserved in the stratigraphic record.
With the development of modern radiometric dating methods in the late s and s, it was possible for the first time not only to measure the lengths of the eras, periods, and epochs but also to check the relative order of these geologic time units. Radiometric dating verified that the relative time scale determined by stratigraphers and paleontologists Figure 1 is absolutely correct, a result that could only have been obtained if both the relative time scale and radiometric dating methods were correct.
Nonetheless, stratigraphy and radiometric dating of Precambrian rocks have clearly demonstrated that the history of the Earth extends billions of years into the past. Radiometric dating has not been applied to just a few selected rocks from the geologic record.
Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old?
Roman poet Lucretius, intellectual heir to the Greek atomists, believed its formation must have been relatively recent, given that there were no records going back beyond the Trojan War. The Talmudic rabbis, Martin Luther and others used the biblical account to extrapolate back from known history and came up with rather similar estimates for when the earth came into being. Within decades observation began overtaking such thinking.
In the s Nicolas Steno formulated our modern concepts of deposition of horizontal strata. He inferred that where the layers are not horizontal, they must have been tilted since their deposition and noted that different strata contain different kinds of fossil. This position came to be known as uniformitarianism, but within it we must distinguish between uniformity of natural law which nearly all of us would accept and the increasingly questionable assumptions of uniformity of process, uniformity of rate and uniformity of outcome.
Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years.
See this page in: Russian How old is planet Earth? There are enormous differences of opinion. The most common view is that Earth is approximately 4. The lowest age defended on a scientific basis is in the 6 to 10 thousand year range. Theoretically, Creationism remains workable within a wide range of age estimates. Scientists have proposed numerous age estimation methods. Most systems promoted by Evolutionists involve radioactivity. Various radioactive elements are involved, including Carbon , Uranium , Thorium , and Potassium And it does not work on rocks or thoroughly mineralized fossils; it is only useful for relatively well-preserved organic materials such as cloth, wood, and other non-fossilized materials.
Other methods must be used to estimate the age of rocks and minerals. Two of the most widely-known systems are the potassium-argon method and the uranium-lead method.
Age Of The Earth
A indicates alpha decay; B indicates beta decay. We can calculate the half-lives of all of these elements. All the intermediate nuclides between U and Pb are highly unstable, with short half-lives. Then any excess of Pb must be the result of the decay of U When we know how much excess Pb there is, and we know the current quantity of U , we can calculate how long the U in our sample has been decaying, and therefore how long ago the rock formed.
The method may not be perfect, but it is the best we have for dating trees. The Oldest Reef The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4, years old— dated via measuring the growth rate for 20 years.
In fact, you are probably much more interested in PE class than you are in studying the methods used to date the Earth. However, since most science books and school textbooks are selling you a lie by telling you that the Earth can be dated at almost five billion years old and the Universe at almost 14 billion , you deserve to hear the truth. But, before we start this study on dating methods, you have the right to ask a very valid question: The Bible presents evidence to establish that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
Most scientists suggest that it is billions of years old. If the dating methods these scientists use are right, then the Bible is wrong. However, if the dating methods that give billions of years are wrong, then the Bible remains the inspired Word of God that can be trusted. According to evolutionists, in order for evolution to occur, the Earth must be very old. Of course, evolution could not occur regardless of how old the Earth is. But as scientists began to discover the design of the Universe, it soon became evident that the time would have to be increased by billions of years.
How many more billions will scientists have to add in the future? The goal of this issue of Discovery is to show without going into technical details that the dating methods yielding billions of years have serious flaws in them. This document may be copied, on the condition that it will not be republished in print unless otherwise stated below, and will not be used for any commercial purpose, as long as the following stipulations are observed: