How old is the Earth?

[bobthebandit]

How old is the Earth?

[Huderon]

Thanks for the link docspock ... it's nice to hear it again. I do still have my copy on vinyl, just don't have a working turntable to play it with !

[bobthebandit]

Obviously no one knows for certain the Earths age.

However another piece of strong evidence is the Earth's magnetic field.
Studies have shown it is shrinking, and the intensity of the field apparently decreases by half approx every 1400 years.

If we assume that the field has been decaying at the same rate for the last 10,000 years, the field would have been more intense than that of a magnetic star.
The heat and electrical extremes from such conditions would have made life on earth impossible beyond 10,000 years

[Aquagility]

Why do people ask questions when they are quite sure that they know the answers?

[Huderon]

OK, just for the fun of it I'll address two points you raise.

You quote Paul Abramson - Origins The Genesis as saying that "One thing that most average people don�t know is how wildly the radio-active dates can fluctuate within different samples of the exact same specimen." That statement is perfectly true. It is also misleading. What he implies is that the variation in radioactive dating happens with all samples of all types of rock. While his statement is true of sedimentary rock (whare you are dating the material which formed the sedimentary rock, not the actual rock itself), I have not found anywhere that suggests it is true of all types of rock.

The magnetic field measurement you give is an extrapolation based on 130 years worth of measurements. It ignores the geodynamo model of the field (where the earth's core is essentially a dynamo creating the field). If that model is accepted, more energy can be put into the system, which maks the extrapolated figure useless. Further, the magnetic field is divided in two parts, the dipole (which approximates to a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet) and the nondipole components which make up the remainder. The extrapolation you use is based solely on the measurments of the dipole element and a 1960s study showed that the decrease of strength in the dipole had been made up for by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components.

Or to put it another way, ignoring one element in the mechanics of the magnetic field to support your argument isn't good science.

[Teddio]

How do you link "heat and electrical extremes" with the strength of the Earth's magnetic field? Earth's present magnetic flux density is only 55 micro Tesla. What mechanism could be responsible increase for the huge values you suggest the Earth had in the recent past?
The uncertainty in estimating the Earth's age isn't large. A large body of evidence suggests the Solar System is around 4.8 billion years old. Of course it is impossible to define the point when Earth condensed from a cloud of dust and gas into a discrete planetary sphere.

[wildwood]

As you obviously hold a solid view on the 10,000 years theory, please explain on how an African man and an Chinese man became to look so different within mere 10,000 years, something which in evolutionarily separation would normally take well over 100,000 years. We know all humans are one and the same species as inter-racial children are as fertile as anyone!

[Tim123]

Bob,

You are very obviously looking for support for your belief in the literal truth of the old testament.

You won't find it under 'Science'.

[chakka35]

I agree with naomi. I belonged to Mensa years ago and indexed its magazine for a few years. Having to read every word published during that time made it clear to me that Mensa includes as many nut-cases per capita as the rest of the population.

[bobthebandit]

I honestly wouldnt know how old the planet is, but I do tend to lean toward the Young Earth theory with all the recent research that has taken place.

Appoximately 47% of Americans now believe in the Young Earth theory.

The late Victorian beliefs of the Old Earth and Evolution are now being re thought.

For example, Evolutionists have never found one single fossil showing a transitional crossover from one creature to another, which tends to dispel this theory also.

(Although I think one transitional fossil was found which David Attenborough produced on his programme last week. However this fossil is now strongly believe to be 2 creatures which became trapped and were stuck together)

Anyone thanks for all your previous replies regarding this interesting debate

[naomi24]

Bob, as Tim says, you aren't likely to find anyone to support a young earth theory in this section. Perhaps you should try posting your question in Religion and Spirituality, a sub-section of Society & Culture, where you will find some people who take the bible literally.

[bobthebandit]

Naomi
Having not read the Bible I wouldnt know what it says about this topic

[BillyBB]

53% of Americans voted for Obama in 2008 whilst 51% voted for Bush in 2004. Were they all right?
So 47% of Americans are young earthers and no doubt many believe numerous other crazy lies they see on TV too.
Most who take an objective view of all the evidence conclude the earth is billions of years old. Just because it is difficult to imagine such a length of time shouldn't stop you trying.

[TCL-MUMPING]

"For example, Evolutionists have never found one single fossil showing a transitional crossover from one creature to another, which tends to dispel this theory also."

Have a wee look here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

[naomi24]

Bob, the bible doesn't say anything about this topic, but advocates of the young earth theory often use the chronology of the bible, as far as they feel it can be ascertained, to support their claims.

[Gormless]

The Creation was in 4004 BC, simple, see Scofield, after Ussher.

Was any one of you around to disprove it?

It's a bit like some weird stuff I am reading at the moment, e.g. "10 seconds after the Big Bang the universe was 10cms wide".

Oh yes? Mind you today's suckers will believe anything if you wrap it up in Science and Mathematics.

[bobthebandit]

TLC Mumping
Thanks for the link ie::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Having read the full article it says toward the end however:-

"A group including astronomer Fred Hoyle and physicist Lee Spetner published a series of papers claiming that the feathers on the Berlin and London specimens of Archaeopteryx were FORGED"

[Gormless]

My mum is dead, I thought you knew that, you all-lovable cuddly cockerney, not at all a C--T then.

[naomi24]

Bob, I'm a little confused here. You haven't read the bible, but if you believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, then the degree of evolution that science believes has taken place would be impossible - so do you believe in creation rather than evolution - and if so, what do you think was responsible?