How old is the Earth?

[silencertalk]

Odds of it being 4.5 billion,as scientists claim, are pretty low.

I would say that the odds of it not being 4.54 billion, ± 50 million years, are pretty low. This is like estimating someone's date of birth (including year) to within two days, yet I would bet money on that date range at 10:1 odds.

As for why there are dinosaur fossiles when the Earth is less than 10,000 years old - one could say that God created the fossil record to test our faith.

[johndoe3]

Personally, I don't know how accurate the 4.5 billion years age of the age of earth is, but archaeological evidence is extant that humans civilizations were on the earth far longer than what is taught. It appears that modern history as taught is merely the restart from a catastrophic end of a high civilization in the distant past.

The book, Forbidden Archaeology, opened my eyes to real evidence for ancient civilizations dated to 50-100 million years ago. For example, a gold globe found in the middle of a huge granite boulder in Africa, has inscriptions of letters from an alphabet that has never been seen before on earth. The granite boulder's age was dated in the 10's of millions of years. Or take the example of a gold chain found in an underground coal mine in Indiana/Ohio that was underneath an unbroken rock layer above it. The coal was scientifically investigated and dated at over 100,000 years.

http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeol ... archeology

Most libraries have this 914 page book, so check it out of the library for free if you're interested. In the book are perhaps hundreds of photographs and graphics of actual artifacts, with many that have been scientifically dated. Also interesting is the evidence at multiple sites of an ancient nuclear war (Northern India and Egypt), corroborating the written history in the ancient Vedas of India (buried rooms turned to glass and human remains that are still highly radioactive; and green glass fields where the sand was turned to green glass by a nuclear weapon).

Anyone who reads the book, Forbidden Archaeology, will never again see the earth and its history in the way they were taught in school. I'm a Christian, but I go where the evidence takes me in regards to our lost history on earth.

[GoJohnnyGo]

That is almost like saying that the jury is still out on if the Earth is round or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Well I am not suggesting it is 6000 years old, but if it was 1 billion or 10 billion, yeah I think that is possible. Odds of it being 4.5 billion,as scientists claim, are pretty low.

I would love for you to elaborate on why the odds of the Earths age being 4.5 billions years old are low.

[doubloon]

...
As for why there are dinosaur fossiles when the Earth is less than 10,000 years old - one could say that God created the fossil record to test our faith.

I don't recal any claims that earth was the only thing god ever created. Obviously the earth was created from some previous failed experiment world and the dinosaurs got ground into fossils during the recycling.

[renegade]

That is almost like saying that the jury is still out on if the Earth is round or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Well I am not suggesting it is 6000 years old, but if it was 1 billion or 10 billion, yeah I think that is possible. Odds of it being 4.5 billion,as scientists claim, are pretty low.

I would love for you to elaborate on why the odds of the Earths age being 4.5 billions years old are low.

Do you know how big a number 4.5 billion is?

[jdj]

Pleasantly surprised to see that only 1/25 (so far) of the respondents to this poll are dumb as s--t.

[doubloon]

...
Do you know how big a number 4.5 billion is?

500,000 times bigger than 9,000 but I'm not sure that means 9,000 is any more accurate.

[Munk]

When all is said and done, I don't think any of us really know for sure. There is only so much certainty you can have in information that you have not witnessed or verified yourself, regardless of what stance you have.

For example, assume there are two dice in a closed box. You then shake the box, and have someone other than yourself look inside and tell you what numbers they see. If they were to tell you 2 numbers, could you really say with 100% certainty that those were the actual numbers showing? After all, the person could be lying, or maybe they didn't get a good look and are simply mistaken. Or, maybe they saw the numbers very clearly and are telling the truth. The point is that, without seeing it with your own eyes, or verifying the claims personally, you have to admit (even if only to yourself) that you simply can't be sure. Of course, if you had 1 million people look in the box, and then cross-checked the data for trends in the responses, you may be able to formulate a hypothesis based on probabilities. But even in that circumstance, there is still some degree of uncertainty -- and you'd still be putting trust in second-hand experiences.

I assume none of us were around to witness God creating the Earth, nor do I think that any of us have personally performed actual scientific experimentation to verify the age of the Earth. What this tells me is that, whatever you believe is true, you are ultimately putting trust in something you don't know for sure. We all have our reasons for believing in what we do, some have better reasons than others, but I think that you'd be surprised just how little we (as individuals) actually know for sure.

A good example has to do with paternity. How do you really know the people you assume are your parents, are indeed your actual parents? Baby pictures...how do you know that child is actually you in the photo, or that it wasn't taken sometime after your faux-parents got a hold of you? Physical/Behavioral similarities...a lot of unrelated people look alike and act alike. Maybe you were adopted and your parents never told you. Maybe there was a mix-up in the hospital and no one caught the mistake. Its happened before.

How do you know you're not dreaming right now, and I mean really? You may say "this doesn't seem like a dream..." but how many dreams have you had where you were completely unaware that you were dreaming the entire time, but only realized the truth after you awoke? I've had dreams in which I had false memories, which is to say, memories of events that never actually occurred. With those things being considered, what infallible argument could there be to rule out the possibility that perhaps you are in a coma right now, dreaming all of this?

Of all those facts you read about in science class, how many have you actually verified...or did you simply take them at face value? And of all the experts you use to justify your beliefs, how do you even know those people exist, and that those experiments actually took place? How do you really know that the findings were replicated by others? Ink marks on paper? A specific sequence of pixels on your computer screen? That's not true knowledge, that's indirect knowledge. Sure, maybe that indirect knowledge is 100% correct, but that doesn't mean you can be certain its correct.

Back to reality, this way of thinking is not very compatible with being able to function normally in society. It would be completely impractical to go around being utterly uncertain of even the most commonly accepted things... but simply because it isn't practical doesn't mean it isn't true. Have an honest chat with yourself, and see if you can find something (anything) that you really know for certain.

[doubloon]

Schrödinger's dice.

[GoJohnnyGo]

[/quote]

Do you know how big a number 4.5 billion is?[/quote]


Yes I do.

I get very discouraged by people who discredit commonly accepted scientific theory just because they don't understand it. My next sentence isn't a personal attack towards you because I don't even know you and for all I do know you may just be stirring the pot to make this thread interesting.

Saying that the Earth isn't 4.5 billion years old because that number is too large to fathom is taking the easy way out. It's the solution for a lazy brain, someone not burdened with actual geologic knowledge. If someone has studied historical geology and read the peer reviewed literature and still doesn't believe that the Earth is 4.5 Ga then more power to them. I would love to discuss their view on the subject. But, not understanding something doesn't make it any less accurate.

[renegade]

Yes I do.

I get very discouraged by people who discredit commonly accepted scientific theory just because they don't understand it.

First, I was not discrediting it, I was expressing doubt. Because I understand it, is precisely why I can express doubt. Even the 4.5B number, is usually expressed with the caveat of +- 50 MILLION Years.

Second, "commonly accepted scientific theory, is not scientific fact.

Third, throughout history, each generation has presumed their scientists are infallible, yet history has shown this to be a losing bet. I gave examples above, many more abound.

[silencertalk]

Because I understand it, is precisely why I can express doubt. Even the 4.5B number, is usually expressed with the caveat of +- 50 MILLION Years.

That is only +- 1.1%, which is a very small variation, which speaks to how certain they are. It would be like predicting the age of a person to within 2 days.

[renegade]

The age of the Earth has been known reasonably well since the 1950s, when geochemist Clair Cameron Patterson of CalTech determined it to be 4.550 billion years +/- 70 million years. This age was based on isotopic dating of 5 meteorites and a representative sample of modern Earth lead from a Pacific deep-sea sediment, all of which plot along a linear isochron on a graph of 207Pb/204Pb versus 206Pb/204Pb (Patterson, 1956). Patterson built upon earlier work by Arthur Holmes, E.K. Gerling and F.G. Houtermans (see Dalrymple, 2001; Lewis, 2000). More recent work has generated ages within Patterson's margin of error.

There you go. It is based on 5 meteorites and some deep sea sediment and other similar tests. 10 years from now, some new meteorites may be found, or different lead/substances from other parts of Earth, and the new estimate of the earth will be made, invalidating the current 4.54B.

AFAIK, we have not drilled deeper than about 5-7 miles into the Earth's crust. We have no idea what samples 100, 1000, 5000 miles deep would provide. I imagine if we could take a 5000+ mile core sample of the Earth, it would greatly change our opinion of many of our beliefs about the planet.

There is just so much we do not know about Earth, I myself do not believe what little we do theorize is not subject to change.

[bakerjw]

To the young earthers I ask... where are the fossils of animals that are still around? With the exception on the coelacanth, there are no creatures currently around in he fossil record.

This is incorrect. Quite a few animals are alive today that can be found throughout the fossil record. Stromatolites are a colonial animal still found off the coast of Australia, they're one of the oldest fossilized animal we have found. Nautilus, alligators, Gastropods, scleractinia corals etc. I'm not trying to be a dick and call you out.

Certainly not being a dick. Education based on facts is always a good thing.

The 6000 year s comes from God creating the earth in 6 days and a day to god being 1,000 years.

Militant atheists are just as bad as rabid Christians in these types of discussions.

[silencertalk]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/ ... p=features

[doubloon]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/ ... p=features

Hokey carbon dating pseudoscience.

[lilfuzzybuny]

munk, one of these days i'd love to pick your brain on human predictability

your same reasoning is why i chose the 3rd option. if we were to trust what the scientists are telling us to begin with. we have very limited data points to begin with. as humanity, we're still learning.

[CThomas]

Any history is only as accurate as the people who interpret it and write about it, and we know everyone has an agenda.
I think renegade nails it, as new facts come to light, new technology and testing methodology comes about it changes our very understanding of what we thought we knew.

As a far as artifacts being found in sold rock etc thus people think civilization dates back signifcantly further then originally thought I am sure there are other plausible explanations for such findings.

Pick a field of science any field and you will see the best within argue theories all of the time. People argue over how the pyramids were built or how an obelisk was raised and these things took place 5-6K years ago or so they say and science thinks they can accurately date the earth. Paleontologists argue as to whether the dinosaurs were warm blooded or cold. They can hypothesise all they want based on fossil evidence and todays creatures, but until someone discovers one living in some remote part of the planet, or clones one from DNA or finds one buried that is completely intact all we will have are educated guesses.

As much as I would like to know how old this rock is my real concerns right now are; how bad will this storm be, who will win the election and if I will have cookie dough ice cream or mint chocolate chip for desert and the latter is the most pressing concern.

[doubloon]

mint chocolate chip

[Munk]

munk, one of these days i'd love to pick your brain on human predictability

your same reasoning is why i chose the 3rd option. if we were to trust what the scientists are telling us to begin with. we have very limited data points to begin with. as humanity, we're still learning.

Sure. I actually enjoy thinking about and discussing subjects like this, always have for some reason. Fun fact: When I was in college, I basically minored in Philosophy on accident. By my senior year, I had apparently taken so many philosophy classes as electives, that I only needed one more to make it my official minor Whoops! But yeah, Sociology was one of my favorite subjects (though it's not technically "philosophy")-- really interesting stuff regarding human behavior nonetheless.

[Fulmen]

Odds of it being 4.5 billion,as scientists claim, are pretty low.

But nevertheless it's what the current evidence points at. No other claim can show anything like the evidence we have for 4,5B plus/minus some, and I would actually be somewhat surprised if this wasn't pretty close to the truth.

[dustdevil]

500 years ago scientists said the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth.

200 years ago scientists said heavy than air flying machines were impossible.

30 years ago scientists said the earth was heading into an Ice Age.

I do not know how old the Earth is, but I am pretty sure it is not likely to be what scientists think it is.

You are wrong. No one thought the earth was flat 500 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
Quote:
"Columbus mistakenly used a much shorter length for a degree (he substituted the shorter 1480 m Italian "mile" for the longer 2177 m Arabic "mile"), making his degree (and the circumference of the Earth) about 75% of what it really was.[20] The combined effect of these mistakes was that Columbus estimated the distance to Japan to be only about 5,000 km (or only to the eastern edge of the Caribbean) while the true figure is about 20,000 km. The Spanish scholars may not have known the exact distance to the east coast of Asia, but they believed that it was significantly further than Columbus' projection; and this was the basis of the criticism in Spain and Portugal, whether academic or amongst mariners, of the proposed voyage."

500 years ago everyone thought that Columbus was on a one way visit to starvation. He was lucking and ran aground and was able to make it back. Saying that people 500 years ago thought the earth was flat is like saying before 1968 everyone in the world thought the moon was made of cheese. In that view Niel Armstrong was on a journey of discovery looking to break the monopoly that 7-eleven has on nachos.

The geocentric universe model was considered fact for a great deal of time in our recorded history. It explained a number of observational phenomenom but, not everything which caused people to question it and find a better model and theory. Until we directly observed it the heliocentric model was a theory. A very well spelled out and calculated theory but, theory none the less. Flight was not considered impossible 200 years ago. Hell, I think that people had made hot air ballons even then. People observed the flight of birds and knew it wasn't magic. Hell, kite flying was a thing. Powered flight was a challenge and the technology of 200 years ago was not up to it and they knew it. We know factually that the earth has to be older than a handful of thousands of years. Many observations and repeatable experiments tell us this. I remember being taught in school during the 80's that modern man was on the outside of 25,000 years old. It is accepted in science now that modern humans are over 160,000 years old. Arguing about the earth being 4.5 billion years +- 50 million is of no real concern.

Human civilization is based on the shoulders of giants. Those giants have made mistakes and will continue making many more mistakes. Those giants of intellect were not stupid though. Question everything but, do so in a way that does not cause you to be a pundit of ridiculous and stupid ideas.

[doubloon]

... No one thought the earth was flat 500 years ago.
...

I'm not so certain this is absolutely correct either. I'm almost certain someone thought the earth was flat 500 years ago but probably not everyone. I find it hard to imagine there isn't someone, somewhere alive today that thinks the earth is flat.

[Fulmen]

That's just nitpicking, there will always be ignorant people. The point is that any person with any knowledge of the subject and most without it would have known the earth was round.

And as for science not always getting it right: Technically they never get things exactly right, and even if they did we'd have no way of knowing for sure. But it's the best we've got and rejecting scientific knowledge because we may get more knowledge in the future doesn't make any sense.

[doubloon]

If you think that's nitpicking then you're really not going to like the fact that the 4.5B year dating is based on tests of meteorites and nothing "native" to the earth itself and it's all based on theory less than 75 years old.

Less than 100 years ago we thought the earth was between 1B and 3B years old. So in the past 50 years we all of a sudden have the answers to everything? For decades Einstein's work was gospel before questions began to pop up.

Who's to say the earth isn't 9,000 years old and some 4.5B year old rocks didn't just happen to collide with it a few thousand years ago after it "abruptly" formed in the path of these projectiles?

In the face of alll that we have a problem with renegade's "odds are low" statement?