How Old Is The Earth?

[javajo]

Hey Javajo, what brings you to that conclusion if you dont mind me asking?

Hi MEMNOCK, I believe God created the heaven and the earth because the Bible says so and I believe it is God's Word. I believe in a young earth just from my own observations and studies. Most people disagree with the young earth bit but most don't believe Jesus walked on the water or calmed the storm either, which I believe that as well. But I don't care, that's just me.

 

[gnostic]

So why would we throw all that away based on the dating of a few artifacts that cannot be 100% accurately dated.

Then you really don't understand science.

In science, precision is just as important as accuracy. They are not the same things.

Absolutely nothing is 100% in science, let alone accurate.

Also, whenever you get reading or take a measurement, a good student or researcher or good scientist, will always allow room for error within the acceptable range. No matter how accurate an instrument, equipment or technology, you should add margin of error in your report. Even if there were no errors, your report should indicate margin of error for the readings.

In science or engineering that's good practice.

But as technology improve, and instrument or machine become more accurate, so the margin of error get smaller and smaller.

Nevertheless, radiometric dating can be as accurate as it get, as long you take into consideration the limitations, and know which method to use and when to use them.

I think scientists know which dating methods to use with regards to prehistoric Jericho and Damascus, to get the best results.

Is okay, to question those dates given. BUT if repeated tests and using independent dating methods - yield precisely the same results, then you have to accept those evidences have been VERIFIED.

That you would choose to ignore the findings and results would only make you blind creationist. Many Christians are not blind, and can accept that science has revealed that man existed far longer than 6000 years.

Even the gospels give conflicting scene, that is hardly accurate, and if they conflict, they can't be both right.

For example both Matthew's and Luke's clearly stated that Jesus was born during Herod the Great's reign. Historically, Herod died in 4 BCE, so Jesus have to be born at any time between 6 BCE to 4 BCE. Do you agree?

But the gospel of Luke also stated that Jesus was born when census occurred, when Quirinius was governor (Imperial legate) of Syria, and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem to register, even though he lived in Galilee (which is silly).

But the census couldn't have possibly taken place during Herod's reign. Romans only do census on Roman province, and Judaea, at that time, was a Roman province.

Judaea didn't become Roman province until (Herod) Archelaus (king of Judaea) was expelled from Judaea in 6 CE, and his kingdom became a Roman province. Around the same time, Quirinius became legate of Syria. Even the Jewish historian Josephus stated that Quirinius only became legate at this time of Archelaus' expulsion and the census took place then and not before the death of Herod the Great.

Quirinius was never legate of Syria during Herod's last 10 years of life. The governors of Syria were Gaius Sentius Saturninus (10/9 - 7/6 BCE) and Publius Quinctilius Varus (7/6 - 4 BCE). One of these Romans was governor at the time of Jesus' birth. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor from 6 CE to 12 CE.

So clearly, Luke is wrong.

Luke is also wrong about the census being taken -

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.

No such census took place with all the Roman provinces. It is illogical, and there are no evidences to support Luke's claim.

The census took place ONLY BECAUSE Judaea was a newly-made province.

 

[PolyHedral]

Earth is 4.52 billion years old AND earth is 6000 years old.
Earth's orbital speed around the sun has not always been the same.
Today it is said to be ~30 km per second.
4000 years ago it was a lot slower than that. (0.3 km/s)
That's why back then one year (== one full orbit around the sun) lasted a lot longer than one year lasts today.
And 5000 years ago earth's orbital speed was even a lot slower than 0.3 km/s.
So this explains how earth can be 4.52 billions years AND 6000 years old.
The duration of ONE year has varied greatly in the course of ages.
5000 years ago ONE year (==ONE full orbit) lasted as long as 100000 years would last today.
Easy explanation for those many different theories about the distant past.
Is this theory convincing, too?

Dividing the Earth's orbital velocity by 100,000, its lowest speed would be 0.6mph. This is quite clearly far too low to maintain an orbit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Dividing the Earth's orbital velocity by 100,000, its lowest speed would be 0.6mph. This is quite clearly far too low to maintain an orbit.

But if we're messing around with the laws of physics to the point that it would even be possible to speed up and slow down the Earth like that, then presumably, we would have carte blanche to say that anything we want is possible! That other aspect of the idea isn't constrained by physics, so why constrain this aspect?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That you would choose to ignore the findings and results would only make you blind creationist. Many Christians are not blind, and can accept that science has revealed that man existed far longer than 6000 years.

Even the gospels give conflicting scene, that is hardly accurate, and if they conflict, they can't be both right.

For example both Matthew's and Luke's clearly stated ...

Talk about diverting a discussion in order to expound on one's favoritre talking points! Have you ever considered a job in politics?

 

[Photonic]

Earth is 4.52 billion years old AND earth is 6000 years old.
Earth's orbital speed around the sun has not always been the same.
Today it is said to be ~30 km per second.
4000 years ago it was a lot slower than that. (0.3 km/s)
That's why back then one year (== one full orbit around the sun) lasted a lot longer than one year lasts today.
And 5000 years ago earth's orbital speed was even a lot slower than 0.3 km/s.
So this explains how earth can be 4.52 billions years AND 6000 years old.
The duration of ONE year has varied greatly in the course of ages.
5000 years ago ONE year (==ONE full orbit) lasted as long as 100000 years would last today.
Easy explanation for those many different theories about the distant past.
Is this theory convincing, too?

No, because the Earth would no longer have orbital velocity, thus would simply take a path into the Sun.

Sounds good, no?

 

[Photonic]

Then you really don't understand science.

In science, precision is just as important as accuracy. They are not the same things.

Absolutely nothing is 100% in science, let alone accurate.

Also, whenever you get reading or take a measurement, a good student or researcher or good scientist, will always allow room for error within the acceptable range. No matter how accurate an instrument, equipment or technology, you should add margin of error in your report. Even if there were no errors, your report should indicate margin of error for the readings.

In science or engineering that's good practice.

But as technology improve, and instrument or machine become more accurate, so the margin of error get smaller and smaller.

*snip*

I just want to take a moment to clarify a few things on the way we make measurements.

One is the "Range of Validity." This is pretty simple, it's the range in which a theory or model applies. For instance, in a vacuum, all things will fall at the same rate in the presence of downward acceleration (gravity). HOWEVER, if you introduce a medium into the equation, it is very clear that two objects with differing weight, coefficients of friction (including fluid friction in this) , etc will NOT fall at the same rate.

No better example of this than a feather and a bowling ball falling through air.

Anyways, on to measurements. All measurements have uncertainties.

ALL. OF. THEM.

Why is this you might ask yourself? Well, it's simple. Sit down and I'll educate you.

I will be using my keyboard as an example. My keyboard is about 20 mm. Now, nothing warrants us saying 20.00 mm, because those extra zero's imply that the accuracy is good down to the last significant digit. So we say 20 mm.

So if I take a caliper to my keyboard, I take note that my digital calipers are reliable down to 0.01 mm. I find that my keyboard is actually 20.03 mm.

What's the difference between these two measurements? The answer is their uncertainty. It's a difference between the maximum value and the true value. This is completely dependent on the way you measure.

Accuracy of a measurement is indicated by this little guy: "±"

I'll be using an example from a standard University physics textbook for this bit, it puts it nicely.

We often indicate the accuracy of a measured value-that is, how close it is likely to be to the true value-by writing the number, the symbol ±, and a second number indicating the uncertainty of the measurement. If the diameter of a steel rod is given as 56.47 ± 0.02 mm, this means that the true value is unlikely to be less than 56.45 mm or greater than 56.49 mm. In a commonly used shorthand notation, the number 1.6454(21) means 1.6454 ± 0.0021.

*snip*

In many cases the uncertainty of a number is not stated explicitly. Instead the uncertainty is indicated by the number of significant figures, which is the measured value. We gave the thickness of the cover of this book as 2.91 mm, which has three significant figures. By this we mean that the first two digits are known to be correct, while the third digit is uncertain. The last digit is in the hundredths place, so the uncertainty is about 0.01 mm. Two values with the same number of significant figures may have different uncertainties; a distance give as 137 km also has three significant figures, but the uncertainty is about 1 km.


- Young & Freedman University Physics 13th Edition. Ch 1, Sec 1.5 p8. Uncertainty and Significant Figures

 

[Silvercoat]

No, because the Earth would no longer have orbital velocity, thus would simply take a path into the Sun.
Sounds good, no?

Achilles heel of science: Is there any evidence for the claim that the laws of nature and its constants, as we can observe and measure them only today, were the same 4000 years ago?
Was there any 'Gravity' at all, 4000 years ago?
What is it that makes you so certain that the Gravitational Constant (6.7 x 10^-11) had the same value 4000 years ago?
Did 'Gravity', in case it actually did exist 4000 years ago, follow the very same mathematical formulas the scientists of the 'Age of Enlightenment' came up with?
There is just as much evidence for the claim, that today's laws of nature were equally valid some 4000 years ago,
as there is evidence for any other statement about the very distant past ... Zero.

So we come to these conclusions:
'IF the laws of nature have always been the same, since the beginning, THEN,
according to modern science, the age of the earth appears to be ~4.52 billion years.'

However, if the premise of this logical implication is wrong (and without a time machine this can never be verified),
then pretty much every nonsense about what happened in the distant past is equally true.

Example:

IF there was a fifth physical fundamental interaction back then ('divine force'), THEN
the age of the earth can be as much as you want.'

Basically, neither can it be proven, that today's laws of nature were the same some
4000 years ago. Nor is it possible to prove, that there was NO 'divine force' back then. So both claims (age of the earth 4.52 billion years / 6000 years) are equally TRUE (literally, in a logical sense).

lg

 

[Photonic]

Achilles heel of science: Is there any evidence for the claim that the laws of nature and its constants, as we can observe and measure them only today, were the same 4000 years ago?
Was there any 'Gravity' at all, 4000 years ago?
What is it that makes you so certain that the Gravitational Constant (6.7 x 10^-11) had the same value 4000 years ago?
Did 'Gravity', in case it actually did exist 4000 years ago, follow the very same mathematical formulas the scientists of the 'Age of Enlightenment' came up with?
There is just as much evidence for the claim, that today's laws of nature were equally valid some 4000 years ago,
as there is evidence for any other statement about the very distant past ... Zero.

So we come to these conclusions:
'IF the laws of nature have always been the same, since the beginning, THEN,
according to modern science, the age of the earth appears to be ~4.52 billion years.'

However, if the premise of this logical implication is wrong (and without a time machine this can never be verified),
then pretty much every nonsense about what happened in the distant past is equally true.

Example:

IF there was a fifth physical fundamental interaction back then ('divine force'), THEN
the age of the earth can be as much as you want.'

Basically, neither can it be proven, that today's laws of nature were the same some
4000 years ago. Nor is it possible to prove, that there was NO 'divine force' back then. So both claims (age of the earth 4.52 billion years / 6000 years) are equally TRUE (literally, in a logical sense).

lg

Sure, why don't I just modify ANY fact to fit my pre-conceived conclusions.

 

[McBell]

(and without a time machine this can never be verified),

thus meaning the only reason to even entertain it is because you dislike the facts and are desperately grasping at this straw for no other reason than to protect your beliefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Talk about diverting a discussion in order to expound on one's favoritre talking points! Have you ever considered a job in politics?

Seeing how Pegg has put forward that she's not willing to accept the scientific determination of the age of humanity because it is contradicted by a literal reading of the Bible, I think that it's quite relevant to point out that even the Bible itself is contradicted by a literal reading of the Bible. The matter of whether the Bible is reliable generally speaks to the question of whether it's reliable on the age of the human race.

 

[gnostic]

Talk about diverting a discussion in order to expound on one's favoritre talking points! Have you ever considered a job in politics?

I don't see how I did anything wrong, jayhawker, by providing her examples of how the datings are wrong in the gospels.

I actually agree with her that such radiometric datings are not 100% accurate, but I don't think science needs to be 100% in anything. If measurements of time, and using different dating techiques mostly fall within 80% to 90% that's actually good enough for science.

Nothing in science is rigidly set; hypothesis can be accepted or rejected, depending on the evidences available, and theory can be amended or updated.

And Pegg is someone who accepted everything - or almost everything - quite literally in the Bible. Particularly with Genesis and the gospels (referring to the narratives); so what is written is how it happen, that how she treat the Bible.

I simply gave her example with regarding to Jesus' birth, in which they CAN'T BE BOTH true.

Either Jesus was born within a few years before Herod's death (so between about 6 BCE and 4 BCE), or he was born in the time of Quirinius' governorship and census in 6 CE. Clearly someone else was governor of Syria when Herod was still alive.

Can you say Luke or whoever actually wrote that gospel as being accurate?

There are very little doubt that Neolithic Jericho and Damascus were both older than 10,000 years, let alone 6000 years, because the evidences point to such age.

As to the question of the Age of the Earth, the current evidences available showed that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. It is mostly the creationists that rejected the evidences. The Earth could be slightly older and younger than that, should the technology improve with our dating techniques, but the Earth will still be older than 4 billion years.

 

[oldbadger]

How old is the Earth? Oh dear......
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In another thread, scientists had a little difficulty about communication with children. Even today, our best scientists need 'communicators' who can understand science and be able to translate it for lay people to read about. Otherwise their books just don't sell. Simple.

To explain creation of the earth 'simple communication' was needed for ordinary people to be able to grasp hold of such concepts. Not many religions would bother to hold on to the 6000 years idea. The Jehovah Witnesses, for example, accept the age of Earth as 4.54m years.

But, I'm guessing a scientist started this thread, and, befuddled with communication shortcircuits, asked the wrong question......... really needed to ask, 'How old is mankind?' There you go...... typical scientist trip up.

So then, realising the mess up, with nothing to really debate about, they flipped it to 'mankind'. And now, triumphantly holding aloft some bones (etc) and equipment, they rush in to destroy religion. But it is the prerogative of the world's religions that they can change their minds about things, just as scientists do from time to time.

When I was at school my geography text book showed a sun that grew a long tail which broke up into the planets. That was 60 years ago........ Just 60 years! Scientists change their minds. And now, many religions accept that the creation of mankind took more like a million years or so. Most scientists just do not have the mindsets to understand why a book would explain creation as it did. They need to get over that.

Others demand 'there's no discussion!' or 'we won't debate!' over this question. Just read some earlier posts in this thread. I tell you, I was told more rubbish by science than religion when I was a kid. Blobby sun tail .......... oh dear....... where is my bible?

 

[Pegg]

Nevertheless, radiometric dating can be as accurate as it get, as long you take into consideration the limitations, and know which method to use and when to use them.
I think scientists know which dating methods to use with regards to prehistoric Jericho and Damascus, to get the best results.
Is okay, to question those dates given. BUT if repeated tests and using independent dating methods - yield precisely the same results, then you have to accept those evidences have been VERIFIED.

Of all the dating methods, there is none more certain then the written historical records of mankind. But our historical records go back only 6,000 years at the most. When we go back beyond this time, the scientific dates are all we have. So do you think its reasonable that humans suddenly woke up one day 6,000 odd years ago and decide to start recording their lives?

That you would choose to ignore the findings and results would only make you blind creationist. Many Christians are not blind, and can accept that science has revealed that man existed far longer than 6000 years.

i dont see how their dating of artifacts can be considered 100% accurate when the dating methods have flaws. They cannot guarantee that the sample being tested has not been contaminated, either with modern (live) carbon or with ancient (dead) carbon. They also date from the premis that the level of carbon 14 is was the same when the orgnism was alive, as it is today. That in itself should be enough to raise the eyebrows because they know the atmosphere is always changing.
So its not about ignoring their findings... actually the majority of human artifacts that they do date fall within the 6,000 odd year range... it comes down to the integrity of the dating method.

Even the gospels give conflicting scene, that is hardly accurate, and if they conflict, they can't be both right.

For example both Matthew's and Luke's clearly stated that Jesus was born during Herod the Great's reign. Historically, Herod died in 4 BCE, so Jesus have to be born at any time between 6 BCE to 4 BCE. Do you agree?

historians base the 5-4bce date for herods death on the writings of Josephus. The problem in getting fixed date from Josephus is that he does not give consistent times to certain events. For example, he also says that Herod died 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans, and 34 years after he took Jerusalem. That would place his death around 2bce. So which date of Josephus should we use? 5-4bce or 2-1bce?

There is also another line of calculation mentioned by Josephus, and that is the age of Herod at the time of his death. Josephus says that he was about 70 years old. He says that at the time Herod received his appointment as governor of Galilee he was 25yrs old. It is generally accepted that 47bce was the year he was appointed. So if he was 25 when appointed, and 70 when he died, then it was at least 45 years between the two....so his death occurred in 2 or 1 B.C.E.

Jesus was born around Oct 2bce.

But the gospel of Luke also stated that Jesus was born when census occurred, when Quirinius was governor (Imperial legate) of Syria, and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem to register, even though he lived in Galilee (which is silly).

But the census couldn't have possibly taken place during Herod's reign. Romans only do census on Roman province, and Judaea, at that time, was a Roman province.

Judaea didn't become Roman province until (Herod) Archelaus (king of Judaea) was expelled from Judaea in 6 CE, and his kingdom became a Roman province. Around the same time, Quirinius became legate of Syria. Even the Jewish historian Josephus stated that Quirinius only became legate at this time of Archelaus' expulsion and the census took place then and not before the death of Herod the Great.

Quirinius was never legate of Syria during Herod's last 10 years of life. The governors of Syria were Gaius Sentius Saturninus (10/9 - 7/6 BCE) and Publius Quinctilius Varus (7/6 - 4 BCE). One of these Romans was governor at the time of Jesus' birth. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor from 6 CE to 12 CE.

Thats what the critics claim, yet inscriptions have been discovered at and near Antioch which state otherwise. You can find information on these inscriptions in the book 'The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291

So it is now recognized that Quirinius was governor twice.
Luke is not wrong because he says "this first registration took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria" The fact that Luke mentions a 'first' registration implies that another must have come afterward...otherwise why bother numbering it if it was the only registration.

 

[Riverwolf]

Of all the dating methods, there is none more certain then the written historical records of mankind.

How do you figure that?

 

[gnostic]

Of all the dating methods, there is none more certain then the written historical records of mankind. But our historical records go back only 6,000 years at the most. When we go back beyond this time, the scientific dates are all we have. So do you think its reasonable that humans suddenly woke up one day 6,000 odd years ago and decide to start recording their lives?

6000 years of written historical records?

Sorry, but where did you pull that number out of, pegg?

The earliest evidence of writing of any sort anywhere around the world, is about 3100 BCE (so about 5100 years, plus or minus 100 years).

I got us off-track with the whole birth of Jesus, death of Herod, Quirinius and the census thing. If you want to comment further about this, we can do so in my old thread:

flaws in the gospels: Jesus' birth, when? ​