Age of the Earth

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
The historical and scientific evidence strongly indicates that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.[note 1]

See also Counterexamples to an Old Earth.

The Age of the Earth has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. Yet with circular reasoning and implausible assumptions, liberals insist that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 ± 1%).[1][2][3]

Old Earth advocates rely on one flawed assumption to the exclusion of other evidence, similar to how an investigator may mistakenly rely on one faulty eyewitness's opinion to the exclusion of all else. In fact, eyewitness testimony is proven to be less reliable to than other indicators, just as the assumption by Old Earth proponents that the rate of radioactive decay has always been constant is flawed. In fact, the rate of radioactive decay would slow down greatly as the universe cools.

Moreover, a large number of physical processes, such as neutron capture and fluctuations in solar radiation, affect the rate of radioactive decay of elements in the Earth's crust and render radioactive dating measurements unreliable, depending upon the specific methods used.[4] Even so, such an error will not cause a calculation of the age of the Earth based on radiometric dating to be off by up to five orders of magnitude.

Much scientific evidence points to a young age of the earth and the universe and the biblical creation organization Creation Ministries International published articles entitled 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe and How old is the earth? which summarize some of the evidence for a young age of the earth.


Historical views


Widespread Historical Acceptance of Biblical Account

For most of recorded history humans of many backgrounds, such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus,[5] viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.[6]

Saint Cyril, who came into Great Moravia (present day Slovakia and Moravia in Czech Republic) from Byzantine Empire in 863 AD as Christian missionary, wrote in his poem Proglas,[7] dedicated to his works on translation of the four biblical Gospels to Slavonic language, the following sentence that brings testimony about the perception of the age of the world that time:

To the holy Gospels I am the Foreword:
for as it was promised by the prophets long ago,
Christ comes to gather the nations,
for He sheds light on the world entire.
That is what has happened in our seventh millennium.
The seventh millennium since the Creation was calculated as follows:
5 508 years that had passed since the Creation till Jesus Christ’s birth plus
863 (the year when Constantine and Methodius had come to Moravia)
results in figure of 6 371.[8]

Prior to the onset of totalitarian and uniformitarian (i.e. long-age) scientism promoted by Lyell, Darwin, Huxley, and others in the 19th century, when most people and scientists in Europe and North America had a Christian or biblical worldview, the atheistic evolutionary concept of billions of years for the age of the earth was unknown to mainstream Western science beyond cursory philosophical speculations.[9]

For example, in his 1619 book the Harmonices Mundi (The Harmony of the World), Johannes Kepler, mathematician and astronomer, wrote that he does not care if his book will need to wait a century for a reader, as God has waited six thousand years for him as an observer.[10] Kepler calculated a Creation date of 3992 BC, and Isaac Newton also strongly defended biblical chronology.[11]

In 1771, the first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, the oldest English-language general encyclopedia that was first published as a 3-volume set in Scotland, included a table of world events under the heading ‘Astronomy’ on page 493. These events begin with the creation of the world in the year 0, which they dated at 4007 years before Christ.[9][12]

In 1830, Dr. Hales published a list of 120 historical authorities from various cultures who had decided on an official date of creation. These ranged from 6984 B.C. to 3616 B.C.[13]

Included in Hales' list is James Ussher, who calculated the famous date of 4004 B.C. for creation. Young Earth creationists still consider this date to be close to the actual date.

Evolutionists vs. Kelvin

Time as key hero for naturalisticexplanation
“Time is in fact the hero of the plot … given so much time the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable and the probably virtually certainly certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles.”
— George Wald[14][15][note 2]

George-Louis Lecrerc, Count of Buffon, rejected Christianity, adopted evolutionary thought, and thus searched for materialistic explanations for the origin of earth.[19] In 1778, he proposed that the Earth was about 74,832 years old[20], what was in line with thinking that pushed God as creator either back in time or out of the picture altogether.[19] In the early nineteenth-century, the so called uniformitarians conspired to overthrow the Biblical chronology that would measure geologic time in generations of man.[21] The dictum as a fundamental maxim for their geological speculation and worldview[22] was expressed through James Hutton’s aphorism[20], coming from his 1785 book Theory of the earth: “The revolt, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end.“[23][24] Hutton's theory of the earth was not based on field observations but on his wishful, speculative confusion of geological process with Newtonian physics.[25]

In 1822, Fourier laid the groundwork for the mathematical analysis of the flow of heat in his treatise Théorie Analytique de la Chaleur; and later, in 1827, he published arguments that the Earth must be cooling.[26]

In 1830 Charles Lyell, despite being familiar with Fourier's arguments[26], supported with a convert's zeal the Hutton's idea of a steady-state Earth of indefinite age in Principles of Geology[20], a book that later influenced Darwin. Lyell started his book with a self-serving history of geology that uncritically hailed any insight anticipating uniformitarianism and under the banner “to free the science from Moses”[27] utterly dismissed the contributions of catastrophists including Georges Cuvier, the "lion of nineteenth-century French science" and founder of modern comparative anatomy and paleontology, who as early as 1796 announced "the existence of a world previous to ours, destroyed by some kind of catastrophe" and whose scientific arguments for the theory of special creation held back the tide of evolutionary thought for a generation.[19] Lyell shown up to be a disciple of Buffon, who resolutely refused to accept the notion of catastrophes, including the Biblical Flood, which many of their contemporaries upheld. Before Darwin boarded the HMS Beagle in 1831, his Cambridge tutor Adam Sedgwick, who had supplied Darwin with a reading list for the voyage, conspicuously omitted controversial Lyell’s Principles. Darwin was however given a copy of the book by the ship's aristocratic captain Robert FitzRoy.[19][28] Darwin was fascinated by book, he dedicated his own writings about the voyage to Lyell, and in his letters claimed that "I always feel as if my books came half out of Lyell's brains ... the great merit of the Principles, was that it altered the whole tone of one's mind & therefore that when seeing a thing never seen by Lyell, one yet saw it partially through his eyes."[29] In his 1859 Origin of species by means of Natural selection, Darwin declared that ‘He who can read Sir Charles Lyell’s grand work on the Principles of Geology, which the future historian will recognise as having produced a revolution in natural science, yet does not admit how incomprehensibly vast have been the past periods of time, may at once close this volume.’[23][30] Darwin based his views on Hutton and Lyell who were dedicated not to modern notions of geological dynamism but to antique ones of geological steady-state.[25] It is believed a feeling of guilt at having helped Darwin arrive at his heretical theories was a factor that might have contributed to FitzRoy’s tragic decision to suicide on 30th April, 1865.[31]

The doctrine that the Earth was of unlimited age allowed Uniformitarian geologists to evade explaining any phenomena by laws of physics and resort to blurring them by “reckless drafts on the bank of time” instead. For the legendary British physicist William Thomson, later known as Lord Kelvin, this game without rules was simply not scientific. The speculations of uniformitarians on age of the Earth were forbidden by the laws of the thermodynamics, which he had helped in developing. He showed with the full force and prestige of mathematical physics, that, if one were to assume that the Earth is a solid body cooling from an initially high temperature, measurement of the rate of heat loss from its surface would clearly place limits on its age.

Kelvin started to advance his arguments under the title “Note on Certain Points in the Theory of Heat” first in 1844 in Cambridge Mathematical Journal. After clarifying some of Fourier’s mathematics related to the conduction of heat and the dissipation of energy, he presented the upper boundary for the age of the Earth in his 1863 classic paper On the Secular Cooling of the Earth as 98 millions of years.[32] The figure was based i.a. on following assumptions and considerations:

On the Kelvin's calculations
I have sometimes been asked by friends interested in geology to criticise Lord Kelvin's calculation of the probable age of the earth. I have usually said that it is hopeless to expect that Lord Kelvin should have made an error in calculation.
—John Perry[33]
  • The ‘celebrated’ Poisson’s hypothesis, that the present underground heat of Earth is due to a passage, at some former period, of the Solar system through hotter stellar regions, would not serve uniformitarians and evolutionists right, since it either grants only short time periods with moderate temperature on earth’s surface or, if the transition from hot region to cold region is shifted further back in time, it leads to extreme temperatures that must have destroyed all animal and vegetable life.
  • The Leibnitz’s theory, which simply supposes the earth to have been at one time an incandescent liquid, without explaining how it got into that state, is the best for view of the geologists who require the longest periods,
  • The initial temperature of molten blob to be 7000°F or 3888°C, respectively, corresponding to a high estimate of generally assumed temperature of melting rock. Later Kelvin explained that he could take lower value as more probable, but was most anxious not to underestimate the age of the earth based on the very meager information then available.[34]
  • The measurements of underground temperatures near Edinburgh served as basis for the estimated “general increase of temperature in the Earth downwards” alias mean geothermal gradient of 1/50th of a degree Fahrenheit per foot (~ ca 36°C/km)

After taking into account the estimated uncertainties in thermal gradient and thermal conductivity, Kelvin broadened an upper limit for the age of the Earth to interval between 20 and 400 millions of years (20 ~ 400 Ma). In a later paper, based on experimental results performed by Carl Barus (who found out that diabase, a typical basalt of very primitive character, melts between 1100°C and 1170°C and is thoroughly liquid at 1300°C)[34], he modified the value for supposed initial molten rock temperature to 1200°C[21], thus by the end of the 1800s narrowed down the interval to 20 ~ 40Ma[35], with personal preference for the lower value which is also the most quoted one.[36][15] Many scientists liked these values, since they appeared to be consistent with calculations made by Hermann von Helmholtz, who in 1854 estimated the age of sun to be between 20 and 40 million years,[20][37] but for both evolutionists in biology as well as uniformitarians in geology they were distastefully low.[38]

The game changer: Radioactivity mythmaking

By the end of the nineteenth century, Lord Kelvin had completely demolished all opposition.[15] He made uniformitarian geological community to accept that the age of the earth must be finite and that estimating the age by quantitative reasoning instead of supporting steady-state theory with philosophical bias should be crucial part of the geological endeavor. Even ‘Darwin’s bulldog’ and musketeer of Darwinism Huxley, who previously attacked Kelvin by making indirect allusions about “the first passer-by who fancies that our house is not so well built as it might be”, ventured to suggest in front of the Geological society of London that “limitation of the period during which living beings have inhabited this planet to one, two, or three hundred million years, may be admitted, without a complete revolution in geological speculation.”[23] But T.C. Chamberlin, head of the Department of Geology at the University of Chicago, was not prepared to concede defeat. While defending his faith in long-ages, he speculated without any observational basis whatever that there might yet be discovered new sources of energy that would allow more time than Kelvin had calculated.[39] Thus, the quest for the age of the earth as a subjective, arbitrary and erratic pursuit, was set for an fascinating turn.[15] This came in 1896, when Radioactivity was discovered by Henri Becquerel and when in 1903 Pierre Curie and Albert Laborde demonstrated that radioactive decay releases heat. Before long, several people argued that this source of heat was great enough to overturn Kelvin’s conclusion about the boundary for the age of the earth. Among them was Ernest Rutherford, who in 1904 suggested, in the Royal Institution, that “Lord Kelvin had limited the Age of the Earth, ‘provided no new source of heat was discovered.’ That prophetic utterance refers to what we are considering tonight, radium!” Later, Rutherford often repeated his tale of thinking on his feet in front of the “old bird” Kelvin who “beamed” at him. This episode and pleasing form of the anecdote, boosted by the eminence of its author, who was considered the father of nuclear theory, provided a ready vehicle for mythmaking and uncritical acceptance of proposition that because the discovery of radioactive heat undermined an assumption behind Kelvin’s calculation, it also undermined his conclusion.[26] As the half-life of radium's dominant isotope is 1600 yr, heat given out by radium obviously could not be the wanted missing energy. Nevertheless, later assumptions of equilibrium in decay series of uranium and thorium allowed to consider heat sources with half-lives in gigayears (Ga; 1 Ga = 109 years).

The 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica discussed dates up to 500 million years.[40] By about 1930, J. H. Jeans was arguing for an age of the Earth of around two billion years.[41]

The inclusion of radiogenic heat makes however only insignificant difference in terms of age limit inferred from the time required for the surface gradient to reach its present-day estimated value of 20°C/km supported by observational evidence. As a matter of fact, it is freely acknowledged that radioactive heat sources within the earth do not account for its present internal temperatures if the earth had really existed for 4.5 Ga. The statements such as "Thanks to Madame Curie, the inexhaustible energies of the atom of the globe … are potentially available to geological speculation" and "Kelvin overthrown"[38] are logically incorrect; Kelvin's conclusion would be undermined by that discovery only if incorporation of the Earth's radioactive heat into his calculations produced a substantially different age limits for the earth.

The general conclusion is that, even if Kelvin had included a reasonable radiogenic heat production in his thermal calculations, he would still have found grounds for arguing that the age limit of the earth was of the order of 108 years and his estimate would have been virtually unaffected.[21]

The Scientific Dogma of 4.5 billion years

Subjective biased approach to data selection
"In general, dates in the correct ballpark are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other date are seldom published, nor are the discrepancies fully explained."
— Richard K. Mauger[42]

In 1943 R.A. Daly of Harvard University published his authoritative paper “Meteorites and an Earth model,” where he studied the analogies between terrestrial rocks and meteorites, coupled with deductions on the probable nature of the Earth’s interior. He hypothesized that the latter ones originated by disruption of a planet once situated between Mars and Jupiter, in the region now occupied by asteroids. At first textbooks have quoted his theory approvingly, but later it has been disfavored due to mineralogical discontinuities between different groups of meteorites which were interpreted as evidence against a single parent body hypothesis. Nevertheless, the meteorites, “enigmatic bodies,” have managed to attract the great resurgence of interest in scientific research.[43]

In his 1956 paper named Age of Meteorites and the Earth, Claire Patterson, using “certain assumptions which are apparently justified,” introduced for meteor age a figure of 4.55 ± 0.07 × 109yr. and commented that since earth lead meets the requirement for definition of “the isotopic evolution of lead for any meteoritic body,” it is therefore “believed that the age for the earth is the same as for meteorites” and that "this is the time since the earth attained its present mass".[44] In spite of cautions and skepticism advised by the authors, this figure gradually became a scientific dogma that rarely anyone has dared to question.[45] Henry Morris explains that the unprovable assumptions are not the only problem with radiometric dating. One huge concern is that the results published are only a selected sample, chosen especially to agree with preconceived ideas about the earth, life, and evolution.[46]

When in 1972 N.H. Gale tried to corroborate this established figure, he discovered that U-Pb ages "showed apparent large excess of radiogenic lead compared with the amount expected from the decay of Uranium in the meteorites over 4.5AE. ... For each of the 4 meteorites there was an excess of radiogenic lead not supported by uranium decay over 4.5AE.” After short analysis:

  • “The superior modern analytical methods used made it impossible that analytical contamination could explain the result.
  • The circumstances ... make it extremely unlikely that terrestrial contamination could explain the results for this meteorites.
  • ... a considerable excess of radiogenic lead in most fractions difficult to attribute to contamination,“

rather than starting to reckon with possibility to challenge the established figures and methods, after recalling that “Patterson was the first to show that several stony meteorites yield a ... model of 4.5AE,” he proposed the new explanation for discovered discrepancy: "discordant results can be attributed to contamination."[note 3]

Assault on scientific Socratic principle
"Most advocates do not defend their theses out of conviction that they are true, but rather because they once declared them to be true."
— Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

Consequently, his research of the Earth’s age turned into calculation of "the correct sample ratios" from "observed ratios" so that the Table in his paper could finally show the “correct” preconceived age, established in this field of research.[49] This methodological flaw is known as data torturing.

Using circular logic — assuming that decay rates remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin — Old Earth proponents insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on an assumption of constancy in Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates and other radiometric methods.[50]

In 1978, Geotimes magazine published by American Geological Institute quoted John Eddy, a famous astronomer, who argued that due to “some new and unexpected results“ scientists could live with bishop Ussher’s 4004 B.C. value for the age of Earth and Sun, a fortiori since there is not much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with his calculations.[51][52]


516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg

William R. Corliss is a cataloger of scientific anomalies (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific paradigms) and has published many works on the subject.[53] He also wrote 13 books for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and a dozen articles for the National Science Foundation (NSF).[54] The science magazine New Scientist had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.[55] New Scientist wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging". [56] Arthur C. Clarke described Corliss as "Fort's latter-day — and much more scientific — successor."[57]

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the old-earth paradigm.[58]


External Links


  1. cf.
  2. Ad. “time itself performs miracles” - cf. Evolution of the gaps: An 'explanation' that has no other than philosophical implication and that cannot be tested is regarded for a key symptom of ideological thinking. Moreover, the Slovak poet Ondrej Fabrici maintained that idols of the old pagan belief systems have been refurbished and disguised in the changed setting of the modern era under the new name of scientific endeavor.[16] For example, the “incomprehensibly vast periods of time” invoked by evolutionism is in fact nothing more than refurbished and masqueraded belief in creative power of elapsing time represented either by ancient Babylonian god, transposed into Greek mythology as Chronos, or antique Aeon[17], a divine power constituting a gnostic belief system. [18]
  3. The claim on the contamination explaining the "discordant result" is in direct contradiction with previous statements that neither analytical nor extremely unlikely terrestrial contamination could explain the results. According to Ryan Dobson, author of a book on moral relativism, a person that holds conflicting opinions about something and starts disagreeing with himself of herself is in trouble.[47] The trouble maintaining a train of thought in logical and coherent manner is regarded by medical science as symptom and characteristic of schizophrenia.[48]


  1. 1.0 1.1 Don Batten (4 June 2009). Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe. CMI.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Jonathan Sarfati. "8", Refuting Evolution; How old is the earth?. 
  3. polling
  5. Burnet, p. 259.
  6. Burnet, p. 258.
  7. Proglas (Slovak). “The parchment version of Proglas in Cyrillic from 13th century was discovered in 1858 by Russian Slavic scholar Hilferding”
  8. Proglas, the foreword to the Old Church Slavonic translation of the four Gospels. The Centre for Information on Literature, Slovakia. “Explanations: in our seventh millennium – it means the seventh millennium since the Creation. It was calculated as follows: 5 508 years that had passed since the Creation till Jesus Christ’s birth plus 863 AD (the year when Constantine and Methodius had come to Moravia) added to the year 6 371 -- that is seventh millennium.”
  9. 9.0 9.1 Encyclopaedia Britannica: supporting a young earth!. Retrieved on November 8, 2014. “The concept of billions of years for the age of the earth was unknown to science (or to the church[4]) before the rise of uniformitarianism in the 19th century. This is strong evidence that modern long-age views of creation do not originate in Genesis, but are a misguided attempt by some Christian leaders to try to reconcile what God has said with the atheistic pronouncements of evolutionary ‘science’.”
  10. Johannes Kepler (1997). The Harmony of the World. American Philosophical Society, IX, XXXVII, 391, 410. “O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee! ... The book is written, to be read either now or by posterity, I care not which. It may be well to wait a century for a reader, as God has waited six thousand years for an observer.” 
  11. Jonathan Sarfati (2010). The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution. Creation Books Publishers, 311. ISBN 978-1921-643064. “Kepler calculated a Creation date of 3992 BC, and Isaac Newton (1643-1727), probably the greatest scientist of all time, also strongly defended biblical chronology.” 
  12. Encyclopaedia Britannica: supporting a young earth!. Retrieved on November 8, 2014. “The notion that the world in billions of years old has only been popular for about 200 years. Before that time most scientists understood that Noah's Flood was responsible for laying down the rocks which today are associated with millions of years. Richard Fangrad and Calvin Smith discuss the details.”
  13. Batten 2002 quotes from "Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible", 1879 8th Edition, 1939, which relates this, and reproduces the selection of the dates from Young.
  14. George Wald (1957). The Physics and Chemistry of Life. G. Bell, 12. 
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 Tas Walker. Western culture and the age of the earth; Review of The Dating Game: One Man’s Search for the Age of the Earth by Cherry Lewis, Cambridge University Press, 2000. CMI. Retrieved on 13 June 2015.
  16. Jozef Ondrej Markuš (2001). Prorok Daniel (Prophet Daniel) (in Slovak). Matica slovenská. ISBN 80-7090-600-6. “Či zmenil dačo Chronos starý na plánoch tých Babylonu, hoci sa ako dieťa tvári vek atómu, elektrónu?! Len tváre figúr vymenené, technika ťahov spresnená, idoly staré postavené odiali sa v nové mená! Kulisy zmenil Chronos – čas Babylon žije prostred nás! (Ondrej Fabrici)” 
  17. ЭОН (Russian). Retrieved on 14 June 2015. “ЭОН (греч. ), термин др.-греч. философии, «жизненный век», «вечность», время в аспекте жизненного существования, как некая целостная самозамкнутая структура (ср. лат. aevum, рус. «век») в отличие от «хро-носа» как абстрактного, количественно-измерительного, объективного и аморфного времени. … В гностицизме зон – это силы, которые исходят от божества. … Эон в геологии длительный период времени, состоящий из нескольких эр.”
  18. Oskar Skarsaune (2002). "12:Orthodoxy and Heresy", In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influence on Early Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 246. ISBN 978-0-8308-2844-9. “There are several gnostic “systems,” with a great deal of variety in details, but one can newertheless discern a basic pattern that is common to most or all Gnostic texts: There exists a highest God, who within himself comprises several divine powers. The Gnostics called these powers aeons, and there were different systems of arranging aeons. … This aeon, confused and in despair, created the material world…” 
  19. 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 E.J. Larson (2006). Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. New York: Modern Library, 9, 13-18, 39, 58-62. ISBN 0-8129-6849-2. 
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 INGV
  21. 21.0 21.1 21.2 F.M. Richter (1986). Geological Notes: Kelvin and the Age of Earth. 94. Journal of Geology. pp. 395-401. 
  22. Philip C. England, Peter Molnar, Frank M. Richter. Kelvin, Perry and the Age of the Earth. Retrieved on 13 June 2015. “Before dissecting Kelvin's arguments, it is worth describing the worldview that he was opposing.”
  23. 23.0 23.1 23.2 W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) (1869). On Geological Dynamics. Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow.
  24. James Hutton (1785). Theory of the earth; or an investigation of the laws observable in the composition, dissolution and restoration of land upon the globe.. Royal Society of Edinburgh. 
  25. 25.0 25.1 D. R. Wallace (June 14, 1987). IT'S AN OLD, OLD , OLD, OLD WORLD. NYT. Retrieved on 7 June 2015. “Hutton's theory of the earth as a geological clockwork of eroding continents balanced against uplifting ocean basins was not based on field observations but on his wishful, speculative confusion of geological process with Newtonian physics....Hutton and Lyell were dedicated not to modern notions of geological dynamism but to antique ones of geological steady-state...The textbook legend of Hutton and Lyell seems dim and confused compared with that of Copernicus and Galileo. In demonstrating the shallowness of that legend”
  26. 26.0 26.1 26.2 P. England, P. Molnar, F. Richter (January 2007). "John Perry’s neglected critique of Kelvin’s age for the Earth: A missed opportunity in geodynamics". GSA Today 17 (1). doi:10.1130/GSAT01701A.1. Retrieved 5 June 2015. "Fourier ... made arguments that the Earth must be cooling (Fourier, 1827), with which Lyell was certainly familiar (Lyell, 1830, p. 140–141).". 
  27. Charles Lyell (1881 (1990)). Principles of Geology. University of Chicago Press (reprint), 268 (XVII). “Most other geologists, whether or not they agreed with Lyell on specific issues, would in fact have considered themselves his allies in hoping “to free the science from Moses” (Lyell 1881, vol.1, p.268).” 
  28. The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Part 1 7-part series Part 1, 46min:15sec. BBC (1978). Retrieved on May 17, 2015.
  29. Ch.Darwin. Darwin Correspondence Database: Darwin, C. R. to Horner, Leonard 29 Aug 1844. Darwin Correspondence Project by Cambridge University Library. Retrieved on May 17, 2015.
  30. Charles Darwin (1859). On the Origin of Species, 1, 282. 
  31. FitzRoy's Bicentenary. The Friends of Charles Darwin. Retrieved on May 17, 2015. “The ridicule over the weather forecasts was probably the last straw that drove FitzRoy to suicide on 30th April, 1865. But there were numerous other factors that might have contributed to his tragic decision: his failed New Zealand governorship; a feeling of guilt at having helped Darwin arrive at his heretical theories; his belief that suicide was a family trait; who knows what else might have helped push him over the edge?”
  32. W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) (1864 (Read 1862)). On the Secular Cooling of the Earth 167-169. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
  33. John Perry (3 January 1895). "On the Age of the Earth". Nature (51): 224-227. doi:10.1038/051224a0. 
  34. 34.0 34.1 Lord Kelvin (January 3, 1895). "On the Age of the Earth". Nature (reprint in SA): 334-337. Retrieved 14 June 2015. "Carl Barus (Phil. Mag., 1893, first half year, pp. 186, 187, 301-305) that diabase, a typical basalt of very primitive character, melts between 1,100° C. and 1,170° and is thoroughly liquid at 1,300°.". 
  35. William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin. Retrieved on 14 June 2015. “Thomson ultimately settled on an estimate that the Earth was 20-40 million years old”
  36. Cherry Lewis (2012). The Dating Game: One Man's Search for the Age of the Earth. Cambridge University Press, 39. ISBN 978-11076-59599. 
  37. Tas Walker. Trial balloons and the age of the earth. CMI. Retrieved on 14 June 2015.
  38. 38.0 38.1 John Woodmorappe. Lord Kelvin revisited on the young age of the earth. CMI. Retrieved on 14 June 2015.
  39. Frank Press, Raymond Siever (1986). Earth, 4, W. H. Freeman, 40. ISBN 978-0716717430. 
  40. Encyclopædia Britannica, pp 650-651.
  41. Universal History of the World, p.76.
  42. Richard L. Mauger (1977). K-Ar ages of biotites from tuffs in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. 15. University of Wyoming. pp. 17-42 (37). Retrieved 13 June 2015. 
  43. Brian Mason (1967). "Meteorites". American Scientist 55 (4). 
  44. Claire Patterson. Age of meteorites and the earth.
  45. Ralph W. Matthews (December 1982). Radiometric dating and the age of the Earth. 5. Creation. pp. 41–44. "In spite of cautions and skepticism advised by the authors this number has been widely and enthusiastically accepted and is usually quoted as if the evidence was decisive and conclusive. It has assumed something of the status of a universal constant to which all other data must be fitted, thus it has become common practice to assume that data which does not fit this result is either wrong or unintelligible.". 
  46. Michael J. Oard. Once upon a time … A Review of The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods by John Woodmorappe. Retrieved on November 9, 2014.
  47. Ryan Dobson, Jefferson Scott (2007). Be Intolerant in Love: Because Some Things Are Just Stupid. Sisters, OR, USA: Tyndale House Publishers, 121. ISBN 978-1590-521526. “You can't recognize that you hold conflicting opinions about something and hang on to both of them for very long. When you start disagreeing with yourself, you're in trouble.” 
  48. Schizophrenia: Symptoms, Types, Causes, and Early Warning Signs. Retrieved on 13 June 2015. “Fragmented thinking is characteristic of schizophrenia. Externally, it can be observed in the way a person speaks. People with schizophrenia tend to have trouble concentrating and maintaining a train of thought. They may respond to queries with an unrelated answer, start sentences with one topic and end somewhere completely different, speak incoherently, or say illogical things.”
  49. Gale, N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R. (1972). U-Pb studies of the appley bridge meteorite. Nature Phys. Science.
  50. Peck, 2000, p.376.
  51. John Eddy quoted by R.G. Kazmann (1978). It’s About Time: 4.5 Billion Years (report on Symposium at Louisiana State University). Geotimes magazine (from 09/2008 renamed to Earth magazine) of American Geological Institute. pp. 18-20. "I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for some frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with bishop Ussher’s value for the age of Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.". 
  52. Jon Covey (January 3, 2013). Age of the Universe. Creation In The Crossfire. Retrieved on December 30, 2014. “Evolutionary astronomers confidently argue the universe is 12-20 billion years old, although there is no certainty about any astronomical observations. John Eddy, a famous astronomer, once said that there isn’t much in the way of observational astronomy that proves the universe is old. He said that with “frantic theoretical readjustment” if new evidence showed that astronomers have been wrong, they could live with Bishop Ussher’s date of 4,004 B.C.”
  53. Science Frontiers (Corliss' web-site)
  54. Corliss, 2002
  55. Adrian Hope, "Finding a home for stray fact", New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83
  56. Quoted on the Science Frontiers web-site
  57. Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography. Gollancz. Page 110
  58. Geological Catalogs (Science Frontiers)
Personal tools