TED Conversations

Obey No1kinobe

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How old is planet Earth?

My understanding from Science is that planet Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.

The current universe is about 13.6 Billion years.

Some claim Earth and the universe is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.

This is not a trivial difference.

My understanding is the young earth theory is the view of some creationists. Other theists take a less literal approach to holy books and are comfortable with an older universe and even evolution.

Do YEC have it right and various radiometric dating techniques are completely flawed or are they relying on a few bogus results and ignoring what is valid science on the whole.

Is this a huge blind spot for science? Or a conspiracy? Or a bit of both?

I have to admit that it would surprise me if radiometric dating was completely misleading. I would have thought these issues would have been worked through, that there would be continuous improvements in techniques and methodology and more accurately estimating the age of the Earth.

What do you think?

0
Share:

Closing Statement from Obey No1kinobe

Thank you everyone who contributed. You'd think the age of the earth is something we could follow the science and agree on. Apparently not.

Science indicates 4.6 Billion years. Bible inspired young earth creationist below say between 5700 and 13000 years. This is a huge difference.

To believe this you need to ignore or disagree with the science in many fields:
Geology - plate tectonics, sedimentary rock formation,
Biology -evolution
Astronomy - star and galaxy light distances
Physics - radiometric dating

Also each different creation myth or interpretation conflict.

Some of the science is ignored based on divine intervention which could make a world that looks 4.6 billion years ago 6,000 or so years ago.

Looking into some of the Christian materials, they state up front that the bible is the truth. Any apparent conflicts between the bible stories and science, then the bible trumps.

I guess no one has changed their minds. But the discussion has helped me better understand some of the issues.

I'm going to stick with science. I see no evidence for any god or that the bible is anything special.

If Bible literalists want to stick with the apparent mythology of a post Canaanite tribe as described in the bible, that is their choice. I would suggest the bible is not a great scientific resource - it says pi is 3, bats are birds, whales are fish and that displaying striped patterns to a pregnant cow will make it give birth to striped cats. Burning bushes and talking donkey's.

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof. But I almost admire the creatively and arguments developed to counter the science. Although the ones I looked at appeared flawed or relied on supernatural intervention of the type we never see now that we have mobile phone cameras.

Thanks for the discussion.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jul 20 2012: One think which perplexes me about people who rant on about radiometric dating is this.
    yes carbon dating hasn't always worked. But there are other isotopes of other elements which take far longer to decay. So fair enough this arrow head may not be 10,000 years old, but the potassium in this rock has been sitting there for 1 billion years! And they never seem to touch on the 11 other methods of radiometric dating. Only carbon dating.
    Other things around this elude people as well. I think the current estimate for age of the earth is believed to be right within 1% or something very similar. And if you look at the history of this story, it doesn't make it any better for YEC. I think it was once said that Earth was maybe a few million years old and the universe was roughly 3 billion years old, I think this comes from Hubble's first set of equations citation needed here, but the idea is, it's progressively got older. We've never found anything ever to make us think it's younger than we originally thought.
    And there's other ingenious dating methods I love. Neil Degrasse Tyson mentioned this one, not a dating technique but a measure of minimum age. it takes light 1 million years to travel from the center of the sun to the outside of the sun. This is measured by the density and gravitational strength of the sun to work out how long light takes to travel.
    • thumb
      Jul 20 2012: Please confirm the time needed for light to travel from the center of the Sun to the surface of the Sun. The Sun's radius is 700,000 Km. A photon will travel 9,500,000,000,000,000,000 Km in a million years. Science is about accurate quantification.
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2012: That's in a vacuum. The sun is not only NOT a vacuum but incredibly dense. In the same way light slows down in water and glass it travels incredibly slowly through the sun and the gravity of the sun makes it even slower.
        http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/solar_system/sun.htm Scroll down to the heading Radiation zone. And Neil Degrasse Tyson mentions it in a youtube talk called stupid design.
        • thumb
          Jul 20 2012: In order for light to travel a mere 700,000 Km in one million years its speed would be 0.7 Km/year. That is immeasurably slow. With all appropriate respect I seriously doubt those numbers.
      • thumb
        Jul 21 2012: It's the strength of gravity, sure if the sun collapsed to a black hole light would never escape. And give it a quick google, time for light to go from centre of sun to outside or something similar. Almost all results will give an answer close to one million
        • thumb
          Jul 21 2012: Montana.edu; Umich.edu; Wikipedia all say the time is approx. 170,000 years. Thats a speed of 4.1 Km/yr, or 6X what you said. I continue to doubt your numbers.
      • thumb
        Jul 21 2012: Well I linked you a site and told you of a youtube talk where a million years is used.
        But even if 1 million is too high. 170,000 years still puts a thorn in the side of YEC.
        • thumb
          Jul 21 2012: I looked at those and I thank you for the reference. My purpose is not to defend the Holy Bible's account of creation. My concern is for inconsistencies in Big Bang/Expansion Theory evidenced by this variety of answers from BB academics and scientists. Does science require precise quantification, or are numbers adjustable as required for consistency of theory? Even skeptical laymen know the value of consistency.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.