Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
58,265
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 36:
Line 36: − + Line 46:
Line 46: − + − + Line 71:
Line 71: − + Line 80:
Line 80: − + − − − − − − − − − − − − Line 111:
Line 99: − + − + − + − + − + Line 128:
Line 116: − + − + Line 138:
Line 126: − + Line 144:
Line 132: − + − + − + − + Line 183:
Line 171: − + Line 206:
Line 194: − + Line 224:
Line 212: − + Line 233:
Line 221: − + − + Line 251:
Line 239: − + Line 265:
Line 253: − + Line 280:
Line 268: − + Line 292:
Line 280: − +
Spelling/Grammar Check & Cleanup
|results in figure of '''6 371'''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Proglas, the foreword to the Old Church Slavonic translation of the four Gospels|publisher=The Centre for Information on Literature, Slovakia|url=http://www.litcentrum.sk/36106|access date=05.05.2012|quote=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.}}</ref>
|results in figure of '''6 371'''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Proglas, the foreword to the Old Church Slavonic translation of the four Gospels|publisher=The Centre for Information on Literature, Slovakia|url=http://www.litcentrum.sk/36106|access date=05.05.2012|quote=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.}}</ref>
|}
|}
Prior to the onset of [[totalitarian]] and [[uniformitarianism |uniformitarian]] (i.e. long-age) [[scientism]] promoted by [[Charles Lyell|Lyell]], [[Darwin]], [[T. H. Huxley|Huxley]], and others in the 19th century, when most people and scientists in [[Europe]] and [[North America]] had a [[Christian]] or [[biblical]] worldview, the [[atheist]]ic [[evolution]]ary concept of billions of years for the age of the earth was unknown to mainstream [[Western civilization|Western]] [[science]] beyond cursory [[philosophical]] speculations.<ref name="YECBritannica">{{cite web |title=Encyclopaedia Britannica: supporting a young earth! |publisher=creation.com |url=http://creation.com/encyclopedia-britannica-supporting-a-young-earth |quote=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’.|accessdate=November 8, 2014}}</ref>
Prior to the onset of [[totalitarian]] and [[uniformitarianism|uniformitarian]] (i.e. long-age) [[scientism]] promoted by [[Charles Lyell|Lyell]], [[Darwin]], [[T. H. Huxley|Huxley]], and others in the 19th century, when most people and scientists in [[Europe]] and [[North America]] had a [[Christian]] or [[biblical]] worldview, the [[atheist]]ic [[evolution]]ary concept of billions of years for the age of the earth was unknown to mainstream [[Western civilization|Western]] [[science]] beyond cursory [[philosophical]] speculations.<ref name="YECBritannica">{{cite web |title=Encyclopaedia Britannica: supporting a young earth! |publisher=creation.com |url=http://creation.com/encyclopedia-britannica-supporting-a-young-earth |quote=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’.|accessdate=November 8, 2014}}</ref>
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 [[Scientific observation|observer]].<ref>{{cite book |title=The Harmony of the World |author=Johannes Kepler |publisher=American Philosophical Society |year=1997 |pages=IX, XXXVII, 391, 410 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=rEkLAAAAIAAJ&q=six+thousand#v=snippet&q=six%20thousand&f=false|quote=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.}}</ref> Kepler calculated a Creation date of 3992 BC, and [[Isaac Newton]] also strongly defended [[Biblical chronology]].<ref>{{cite book |title=The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution |author=Jonathan Sarfati |publisher=Creation Books Publishers |year=2010 |place=Atlanta, Georgia, USA |pages=311 |isbn=978-1921-643064 |url=http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php |quote=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.}}</ref><ref name="Newton">{{cite book
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 [[Scientific observation|observer]].<ref>{{cite book |title=The Harmony of the World |author=Johannes Kepler |publisher=American Philosophical Society |year=1997 |pages=IX, XXXVII, 391, 410 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=rEkLAAAAIAAJ&q=six+thousand#v=snippet&q=six%20thousand&f=false|quote=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.}}</ref> Kepler calculated a Creation date of 3992 BC, and [[Isaac Newton]] also strongly defended [[Biblical chronology]].<ref>{{cite book |title=The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution |author=Jonathan Sarfati |publisher=Creation Books Publishers |year=2010 |place=Atlanta, Georgia, USA |pages=311 |isbn=978-1921-643064 |url=http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php |quote=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.}}</ref><ref name="Newton">{{cite book
|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16878?msg=welcome_stranger
|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16878?msg=welcome_stranger
|quote=The Pentateuch is composed of the Law and the history of God’s people together; and the history hath been collected from several books, such as were the history of the Creation composed by Moses, Genesis 2:4; the book of the generations of Adam, #Ge 5:1;
|quote=The Pentateuch is composed of the Law and the history of God’s people together; and the history hath been collected from several books, such as were the history of the Creation composed by Moses, Genesis 2:4; the book of the generations of Adam, #Ge 5:1;
|accessdate=26 July 2015}}</ref><ref name>{{cite web |title=Experimenting on a Small Planet: A Scholarly Entertainment
|accessdate=26 July 2015}}</ref><ref name>{{cite book |title=Experimenting on a Small Planet: A Scholarly Entertainment
|author=William W. Hay |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |year=2012 |pages=63| |isbn=9783642285608 |url=http://books.google.no/books?id=teJYlWH9vg4C |quote=Ussher’s was not the first nor last attempt to determine the age of the Earth from the Bible. Estimates had been made by the Venerable Bede in 723 (3952 BC) and John Lightfoot in 1644 (3929), and later by Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), and Isaac Newton (4000 BC) among others.}}</ref> The latter also vigorously opposed to a naturalistic cosmic evolution and suggested [[chemical]] processes that might aid in explaining the creation of the earth's [[crust]] during the '''six days'''.<ref name="Rappaport1997">{{cite book |title=When Geologists Where Historians, 1665-1750 |author=Rhoda Rappaport |publisher=Cornell University Press |place=Ithaca and London |year=1997 |pages=138 |isbn=978-0801-433863 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=30U3W2kI7foC}}</ref><br>
|author=William W. Hay |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |year=2012 |pages=63|isbn=9783642285608 |url=http://books.google.no/books?id=teJYlWH9vg4C |quote=Ussher’s was not the first nor last attempt to determine the age of the Earth from the Bible. Estimates had been made by the Venerable Bede in 723 (3952 BC) and John Lightfoot in 1644 (3929), and later by Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), and Isaac Newton (4000 BC) among others.}}</ref> The latter also vigorously opposed to a naturalistic cosmic evolution and suggested [[chemical]] processes that might aid in explaining the creation of the earth's [[crust]] during the '''six days'''.<ref name="Rappaport1997">{{cite book |title=When Geologists Where Historians, 1665-1750 |author=Rhoda Rappaport |publisher=Cornell University Press |place=Ithaca and London |year=1997 |pages=138 |isbn=978-0801-433863 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=30U3W2kI7foC}}</ref><br>
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.<ref name="YECBritannica"/><ref>{{cite web |title= Encyclopaedia Britannica: supporting a young earth! |publisher= creation.com |url=http://creation.com/media-center?fileID=Rj4PFM_od9U |quote= 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. |accessdate=November 8, 2014}}</ref><br>
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.<ref name="YECBritannica"/><ref>{{cite web |title= Encyclopaedia Britannica: supporting a young earth! |publisher= creation.com |url=http://creation.com/media-center?fileID=Rj4PFM_od9U |quote= 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. |accessdate=November 8, 2014}}</ref><br>
|url=https://youtu.be/szBTl3S24MY?t=1857
|url=https://youtu.be/szBTl3S24MY?t=1857
|accessdate=26 July 2015
|accessdate=26 July 2015
}}</ref> The year 4004 [[B.C.]] was considered to be also a remarkable astronomical epoch by the great French astronomer [[Pierre Simon Laplace|Laplace]] who in his ''Méchanique Céleste'', Tom III.p.113, announced a curious discovery - it was supposed to be a year when the great axis of the earth's [[orbit]] coincided with the line of the [[equinox]]es, and consequently true and mean equinoxes were united.<ref>{{cite book |title=Chronology and geography |author=William Hales |publisher=C.J.G. & F. Rivington |year=1830 |page=228|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=aNfVAAAAMAAJ}}</ref>
}}</ref> The year 4004 [[B.C.]] was considered to be also a remarkable astronomical epoch by the great French astronomer [[Pierre Simon Laplace|Laplace]] who in his ''Méchanique Céleste'', Tom III.p. 113, announced a curious discovery - it was supposed to be a year when the great axis of the earth's [[orbit]] coincided with the line of the [[equinox]]es, and consequently true and mean equinoxes were united.<ref>{{cite book |title=Chronology and geography |author=William Hales |publisher=C.J.G. & F. Rivington |year=1830 |page=228|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=aNfVAAAAMAAJ}}</ref>
=== Evolutionists vs. “odius spectre” Kelvin ===
=== Evolutionists vs. “odius spectre” Kelvin ===
<div style="padding-left:40px;">— George Wald<ref>{{cite book |title= The Physics and Chemistry of Life|author=George Wald |publisher=G. Bell |year= 1957 |pages=12 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=IlCgnQEACAAJ }}</ref><ref name="West">{{cite web |title=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 |author= Tas Walker |publisher= CMI |url= http://creation.com/cherry-lewis-the-dating-game-one-mans-search-for-the-age-of-the-earth-book-review |accessdate=13 June 2015
<div style="padding-left:40px;">— George Wald<ref>{{cite book |title= The Physics and Chemistry of Life|author=George Wald |publisher=G. Bell |year= 1957 |pages=12 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=IlCgnQEACAAJ }}</ref><ref name="West">{{cite web |title=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 |author= Tas Walker |publisher= CMI |url= http://creation.com/cherry-lewis-the-dating-game-one-mans-search-for-the-age-of-the-earth-book-review |accessdate=13 June 2015
}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|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 [[idol]]s 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.<ref>{{cite book |title=Prorok Daniel (Prophet Daniel)|author= Jozef Ondrej Markuš|publisher=Matica slovenská|year=2001|page=39|isbn=80-7090-600-6|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=zpnkAAAACAAJ|language=Slovak |quote=
}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|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 [[idol]]s 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.<ref>{{cite book |title=Prorok Daniel (Prophet Daniel)|author= Jozef Ondrej Markuš|publisher=Matica slovenská|year=2001|page=39|isbn=80-7090-600-6|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=zpnkAAAACAAJ|language=Slovak |quote=
Či zmenil dačo Chronos starý
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)}}</ref> 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,<ref>{{cite web |title= ЭОН |publisher= dic.academic.ru |url= http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_philosophy/3798/ЭОН |language=Russian |accessdate=14 June 2015 |quote= 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.}}</ref> a divine power constituting a [[gnostic]] belief system.<ref name="Skarsaune">{{cite book
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)}}</ref> 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<ref>{{cite web |title= ЭОН |publisher= dic.academic.ru |url= http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_philosophy/3798/ЭОН |language=Russian |accessdate=14 June 2015 |quote= 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.}}</ref>, a divine power constituting a [[gnostic]] belief system. <ref name="Skarsaune">{{cite book
|author=Oskar Skarsaune
|author=Oskar Skarsaune
|title=In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influence on Early Christianity
|title=In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influence on Early Christianity
|location=New York
|location=New York
|year=2006
|year=2006
|pages=9, 13-18, 39, 58-62
|pages=9, 13–18, 39, 58–62
|isbn=0-8129-6849-2
|isbn=0-8129-6849-2
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=xzLRvxlJhzkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Larson+Evolution:+The+Remarkable+History&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PbZfVJugD83vaJengLgI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=rejected%20Christianity%20&f=false}}</ref> Despite his treatises lacking both a timescale and even a clearly developed sense of time, in 1778 he proposed, apparently following his own belief ''"past is so old and has left so few traces that one can say anything one likes about it"''<ref name="Rappaport1997"/>, that the Earth was about 74,832 years old<ref name="ingv">INGV</ref>, what was also in line with thinking that pushed God as [[Creator]] either back in time or out of the picture altogether.<ref name="Larson"/>
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=xzLRvxlJhzkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Larson+Evolution:+The+Remarkable+History&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PbZfVJugD83vaJengLgI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=rejected%20Christianity%20&f=false}}</ref> Despite his treatises lacking both a timescale and even a clearly developed sense of time, in 1778 he proposed, apparently following his own belief ''"past is so old and has left so few traces that one can say anything one likes about it"'',<ref name="Rappaport1997"/> that the Earth was about 74,832 years old,<ref name="ingv">INGV</ref> what was also in line with thinking that pushed God as [[Creator]] either back in time or out of the picture altogether.<ref name="Larson"/>
In the early nineteenth-century, the so called [[uniformitarian]]s conspired to overthrow the [[Biblical chronology]] that would measure geologic time in generations of man.<ref name="Richter">{{cite journal |title=Geological Notes: Kelvin and the Age of Earth |author=F.M. Richter |publisher=Journal of Geology |year=1986 |volume=94 |pages=395-401 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/30068713}}</ref> The dictum as a fundamental maxim for their geological speculation and worldview<ref name="PerryInAS">{{cite web |title=Kelvin, Perry and the Age of the Earth |author=Philip C. England, Peter Molnar, Frank M. Richter |date= |url=http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/page2/kelvin-perry-and-the-age-of-the-earth |accessdate=13 June 2015 |quote=Before dissecting Kelvin's arguments, it is worth describing the worldview that he was opposing.}}</ref> was expressed through [[James Hutton]]’s aphorism<ref name="ingv"/>, coming from his 1785 book ''Theory of the earth'': ''“The revolt, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find [[Singularity#Antipathy_to_the_idea_of_beginning|no vestige of a beginning]], [[Horror of a Divine Foot|no prospect of an end]].“''<ref name="KelvinOnDynamics">{{cite web |title=On Geological Dynamics |author=W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) |publisher= Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow |year=1869 |url=http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_geological_dynamics.html |aaccessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Theory of the earth; or an investigation of the laws observable in the composition, dissolution and restoration of land upon the globe. |author=James Hutton |publisher=Royal Society of Edinburgh |year=1785 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RjYAAAAAQAAJ}}</ref> Hutton's theory of the earth was not based on field observations but on his wishful, speculative confusion of geological process with [[Newton]]ian [[physics]].<ref name="GOULDinNYT">{{cite web |title=IT'S AN OLD, OLD , OLD, OLD WORLD |publisher= NYT |author=D. R. Wallace |date= June 14, 1987 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/09/home/gould-arrow.html |accessdate=7 June 2015 |quote=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}}</ref>
In the early nineteenth-century, the so called [[uniformitarian]]s conspired to overthrow the [[Biblical chronology]] that would measure geologic time in generations of man.<ref name="Richter">{{cite journal |title=Geological Notes: Kelvin and the Age of Earth |author=F.M. Richter |publisher=Journal of Geology |year=1986 |volume=94 |pages=395–401 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/30068713}}</ref> The dictum as a fundamental maxim for their geological speculation and worldview<ref name="PerryInAS">{{cite web |title=Kelvin, Perry and the Age of the Earth |author=Philip C. England, Peter Molnar, Frank M. Richter |date= |url=http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/page2/kelvin-perry-and-the-age-of-the-earth |accessdate=13 June 2015 |quote=Before dissecting Kelvin's arguments, it is worth describing the worldview that he was opposing.}}</ref> was expressed through [[James Hutton]]’s aphorism,<ref name="ingv"/> coming from his 1785 book ''Theory of the earth'': ''“The revolt, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find [[Singularity#Antipathy to the idea of beginning|no vestige of a beginning]], [[Horror of a Divine Foot|no prospect of an end]].“''<ref name="KelvinOnDynamics">{{cite web |title=On Geological Dynamics |author=W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) |publisher= Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow |year=1869 |url=http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_geological_dynamics.html |aaccessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Theory of the earth; or an investigation of the laws observable in the composition, dissolution and restoration of land upon the globe. |author=James Hutton |publisher=Royal Society of Edinburgh |year=1785 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RjYAAAAAQAAJ}}</ref> Hutton's theory of the earth was not based on field observations but on his wishful, speculative confusion of geological process with [[Newton]]ian [[physics]].<ref name="GOULDinNYT">{{cite web |title=IT'S AN OLD, OLD , OLD, OLD WORLD |publisher= NYT |author=D. R. Wallace |date= June 14, 1987 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/09/home/gould-arrow.html |accessdate=7 June 2015 |quote=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}}</ref>
In 1822, [[Joseph Fourier|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.<ref name="PerryKelvinCritique">{{cite journal | title=John Perry’s neglected critique of Kelvin’s age for the Earth: A missed opportunity in geodynamics |author=P. England, P. Molnar, F. Richter |journal=GSA Today |volume= 17 |number= 1 |date=January 2007 |doi=10.1130/GSAT01701A.1 |url=http://www.colorado.edu/GeolSci/faculty/molnarpdf/2007GSAT.England.PerryKelvinBlownOpportunity.pdf |accessdate=5 June 2015 |quote= Fourier ... made arguments that the Earth must be cooling (Fourier, 1827), with which Lyell was certainly familiar (Lyell, 1830, p. 140–141).}}</ref> This was in line with so called [[Kant-Laplace nebular hypothesis]], under which the earth would have gradually cooled from its assumed molten beginnings to its current state.
In 1822, [[Joseph Fourier|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.<ref name="PerryKelvinCritique">{{cite journal | title=John Perry’s neglected critique of Kelvin’s age for the Earth: A missed opportunity in geodynamics |author=P. England, P. Molnar, F. Richter |journal=GSA Today |volume= 17 |number= 1 |date=January 2007 |doi=10.1130/GSAT01701A.1 |url=http://www.colorado.edu/GeolSci/faculty/molnarpdf/2007GSAT.England.PerryKelvinBlownOpportunity.pdf |accessdate=5 June 2015 |quote= Fourier ... made arguments that the Earth must be cooling (Fourier, 1827), with which Lyell was certainly familiar (Lyell, 1830, p. 140–141).}}</ref> This was in line with so called [[Kant-Laplace nebular hypothesis]], under which the earth would have gradually cooled from its assumed molten beginnings to its current state.
In 1830 [[Charles Lyell]], despite being familiar with Fourier's arguments<ref name="PerryKelvinCritique"/>, supported, with a convert's zeal, the Hutton's idea of a
In 1830 [[Charles Lyell]], despite being familiar with Fourier's arguments,<ref name="PerryKelvinCritique"/> supported, with a convert's zeal, the Hutton's idea of a
steady-state Earth of indefinite age in ''Principles of Geology''<ref name="ingv" />, a book that later influenced [[Darwin]]. Lyell started his book with a self-serving history of geology that [[Academician Burdenko syndrome|uncritically hailed]] any insight anticipating uniformitarianism and under the banner ''“to free the science from Moses”''<ref>{{cite book |author= Charles Lyell |title= Principles of Geology |Volume= 1 |year=1881 (1990)|publisher=University of Chicago Press (reprint) |pages=268 (XVII) |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=9WjnbzHpvfEC |quote=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).}}</ref> [[Kerkut’s student syndrome|utterly dismissed]] the contributions of [[Catastrophism|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.<ref name="Larson"/> Lyell shown up to be a disciple of Buffon, who resolutely refused to accept the notion of catastrophes, including the [[Noah's Flood|Biblical Flood]], which many of their contemporaries upheld. Before Darwin boarded the HMS Beagle in 1831, his Cambridge tutor Adam Sedgwick, who had supplied just twenty-two years old 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, who wished to have some scientific person on board.<ref name="Larson"/><ref>{{cite web |title=The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Part 1 |publisher=BBC |year=1978 |pages=7-part series Part 1, 46min:15sec |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hoDaxVIVPE&feature=youtu.be&t=2850 |accessdate=May 17, 2015 |quote=}}</ref> 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."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Darwin Correspondence Database: Darwin, C. R. to Horner, Leonard 29 Aug 1844 |author=Ch.Darwin |publisher=Darwin Correspondence Project by Cambridge University Library |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/entry-771 |accessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref>
steady-state Earth of indefinite age in ''Principles of Geology'',<ref name="ingv" /> a book that later influenced [[Darwin]]. Lyell started his book with a self-serving history of geology that [[Academician Burdenko syndrome|uncritically hailed]] any insight anticipating uniformitarianism and under the banner ''“to free the science from Moses”''<ref>{{cite book |author= Charles Lyell |title= Principles of Geology |volume= 1 |year=1881 (1990)|publisher=University of Chicago Press (reprint) |pages=268 (XVII) |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=9WjnbzHpvfEC |quote=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).}}</ref> [[Kerkut’s student syndrome|utterly dismissed]] the contributions of [[Catastrophism|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.<ref name="Larson"/> Lyell shown up to be a disciple of Buffon, who resolutely refused to accept the notion of catastrophes, including the [[Noah's Flood|Biblical Flood]], which many of their contemporaries upheld. Before Darwin boarded the HMS Beagle in 1831, his Cambridge tutor Adam Sedgwick, who had supplied just twenty-two years old 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, who wished to have some scientific person on board.<ref name="Larson"/><ref>{{cite web |title=The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Part 1 |publisher=BBC |year=1978 |pages=7-part series Part 1, 46min:15sec |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hoDaxVIVPE&feature=youtu.be&t=2850 |accessdate=May 17, 2015 |quote=}}</ref> 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."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Darwin Correspondence Database: Darwin, C. R. to Horner, Leonard 29 Aug 1844 |author=Ch.Darwin |publisher=Darwin Correspondence Project by Cambridge University Library |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/entry-771 |accessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref>
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightgrey; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | About people who admit how incomprehensibly vast have been the past periods of time
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightgrey; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | About people who admit how incomprehensibly vast have been the past periods of time
*''“I don't have millions billions of years”'' Gail E. Kennedy, Associate Professor, Anthropology, [[UCLA]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Evolution Vs. God Movie |publisher=Living Waters |pages=14min:48sec|date=6 Aug 2013 |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ&feature=youtu.be&t=885 |accessdate=25 July 2015}}</ref>
*''“I don't have millions billions of years”'' Gail E. Kennedy, Associate Professor, Anthropology, [[UCLA]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Evolution Vs. God Movie |publisher=Living Waters |pages=14min:48sec|date=6 Aug 2013 |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ&feature=youtu.be&t=885 |accessdate=25 July 2015}}</ref>
*''“I require for my theoretical views '''a very long''' period before the Cambrian formation.”'' Ch. Darwin<ref name="DarwinToCroll31JAN1869"/>
*''“I require for my theoretical views '''a very long''' period before the Cambrian formation.”'' Ch. Darwin<ref name="DarwinToCroll31JAN1869"/>
*Vallisneri, who together with [[Leibniz]] urged Louis Burguet to consider ''biblical time'' as ''too restricted'', '''could add nothing more''' to his early conviction that the earth is ''"of '''nearly incomprehensible antiquity'''"''. Rappaport (p.195-7)<ref name="Rappaport1997"/>|group=note}} Anything else, of course, could not be expected from a people whose [[Big Bang theory|conceptions of the development of the universe]] are limited to a recognition of the [[Geologic_system#The_system|alternation of seasons]] and the [[Abiogenesis|insistent mysteries of life]] and death.''<div style="padding-left:40px;">— Arthur Holmes <ref name="Holmes1913">{{cite web |title= The age of the earth |author= Arthur Holmes |publisher= Harper |place=London |year= 1913 |pages=2,11 |url= https://archive.org/details/ageofearth00holmuoft |accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote=As an example of one of the more extravagant demands, mention may be made of Darwin’s estimate in 1859 of the time elapsed since the latter part of the Cretaceous period. From the rate of chalk erosion in Kent, he deduced that the excavation of the Wealden valleys had required a period of 300 million years. Referring to this estimate, Jukes gave his opinion that while it might be a hundred time too great, it was equally probable that it was hundred times too small. Evidently 30,000 million years, in the absence of more reliable data, was not considered an absurdly excessive period for the erosion of the Weald. It should be noticed, however, that after the publication of Thomson’s views, Darwin withdrew this estimate from the origin of species.}}</ref></div>
*Vallisneri, who together with [[Leibniz]] urged Louis Burguet to consider ''biblical time'' as ''too restricted'', '''could add nothing more''' to his early conviction that the earth is ''"of '''nearly incomprehensible antiquity'''"''. Rappaport (p.195-7)<ref name="Rappaport1997"/>|group=note}} Anything else, of course, could not be expected from a people whose [[Big Bang theory|conceptions of the development of the universe]] are limited to a recognition of the [[Geologic system#The system|alternation of seasons]] and the [[Abiogenesis|insistent mysteries of life]] and death.''<div style="padding-left:40px;">— Arthur Holmes <ref name="Holmes1913">{{cite web |title= The age of the earth |author= Arthur Holmes |publisher= Harper |place=London |year= 1913 |pages=2, 11 |url= https://archive.org/details/ageofearth00holmuoft |accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote=As an example of one of the more extravagant demands, mention may be made of Darwin’s estimate in 1859 of the time elapsed since the latter part of the Cretaceous period. From the rate of chalk erosion in Kent, he deduced that the excavation of the Wealden valleys had required a period of 300 million years. Referring to this estimate, Jukes gave his opinion that while it might be a hundred time too great, it was equally probable that it was hundred times too small. Evidently 30,000 million years, in the absence of more reliable data, was not considered an absurdly excessive period for the erosion of the Weald. It should be noticed, however, that after the publication of Thomson’s views, Darwin withdrew this estimate from the origin of species.}}</ref></div>
|}
|}
In his 1859 ''[[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection|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.’''<ref name="KelvinOnDynamics"/><ref>{{cite book |title= On the Origin of Species |author= Charles Darwin |year=1859 |pages=282 |edition=1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RdIp_XRopbcC&q=incomprehensibly+vast#v=snippet&q=incomprehensibly%20vast&f=false}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|For partisans of [[Clifford's injunction]] closing this volume at once definitely appears to be a highly commendable suggestion.|group=note}} 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.<ref name="GOULDinNYT"/> 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.<ref>{{cite web |title= FitzRoy's Bicentenary|publisher= The Friends of Charles Darwin |url=http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/fitzroy/ |quote= 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? |accessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref><ref name="BBC67">{{cite web |title=The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Part 6&7 |publisher=BBC |year=1978 |pages=7-part series Part 6&7, 1h:49min:35sec |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXY-EWZU5qo&feature=youtu.be&t=6575
In his 1859 ''[[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection|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.’''<ref name="KelvinOnDynamics"/><ref>{{cite book |title= On the Origin of Species |author= Charles Darwin |year=1859 |pages=282 |edition=1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RdIp_XRopbcC&q=incomprehensibly+vast#v=snippet&q=incomprehensibly%20vast&f=false}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|For partisans of [[Clifford's injunction]] closing this volume at once definitely appears to be a highly commendable suggestion.|group=note}} 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.<ref name="GOULDinNYT"/> 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 30 April 1865.<ref>{{cite web |title= FitzRoy's Bicentenary|publisher= The Friends of Charles Darwin |url=http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/fitzroy/ |quote= 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? |accessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref><ref name="BBC67">{{cite web |title=The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Part 6&7 |publisher=BBC |year=1978 |pages=7-part series Part 6&7, 1h:49min:35sec |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXY-EWZU5qo&feature=youtu.be&t=6575
|accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote=}}</ref>
|accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote=}}</ref>
*''"Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against skepticism and against dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition … [and therefore] ‘On to God’"'' [[Max Planck]]<ref name="Flew"/>|group=note}} 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.
*''"Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against skepticism and against dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition … [and therefore] ‘On to God’"'' [[Max Planck]]<ref name="Flew"/>|group=note}} 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'''.<ref name="OnSecularCooling">{{cite web |title= On the Secular Cooling of the Earth |author=W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) |publisher= Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh |year=1864 (Read 1862) |volume= XXIII |pages= 167-169 |url= http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_secular_cooling_of_the_earth.html |aaccessdate=June 14, 2015}}</ref> The figure was based i.a. on following assumptions and considerations:
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'''.<ref name="OnSecularCooling">{{cite web |title= On the Secular Cooling of the Earth |author=W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) |publisher= Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh |year=1864 (Read 1862) |volume= XXIII |pages= 167–169 |url= http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_secular_cooling_of_the_earth.html |aaccessdate=June 14, 2015}}</ref> The figure was based i.a. on following assumptions and considerations:
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightblue; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | On the Kelvin's calculations
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightblue; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | On the Kelvin's calculations
| style="padding:15px;" | ''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.''
| style="padding:15px;" | ''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.''
<div style="padding-left:40px;">—John Perry<ref>{{cite journal |title= On the Age of the Earth |author=John Perry |journal=Nature |date= 3 January 1895 |issue=51 |pages=224-227 |doi=10.1038/051224a0 |url= http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v51/n1314/pdf/051224a0.pdf
<div style="padding-left:40px;">—John Perry<ref>{{cite journal |title= On the Age of the Earth |author=John Perry |journal=Nature |date= 3 January 1895 |issue=51 |pages=224–227 |doi=10.1038/051224a0 |url= http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v51/n1314/pdf/051224a0.pdf
}}</ref> </div>
}}</ref> </div>
|}
|}
* 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 ‘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 '''[[Leibniz’s theory of earth|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 '''[[Leibniz’s theory of earth|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.<ref name="KelvinNature1895"/>
* 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.<ref name="KelvinNature1895"/>
* 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).
* 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)<ref name="KelvinNature1895">{{cite journal |title=On the Age of the Earth |author= Lord Kelvin |journal= Nature (reprint in SA)|date= January 3, 1895 |pages= 334-337 |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lord-kelvin-on-the-age-of-the-earth/ |accessdate=14 June 2015 |quote= 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°.}}</ref>, he modified the value for supposed initial molten rock temperature to 1200°C<ref name="Richter"/>, thus by the end of the 1800s narrowed down the interval to 20 ~ 40Ma<ref name="chemeu">{{cite web |title=William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin |publisher=chemeurope.com |url=http://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/William_Thomson%2C_1st_Baron_Kelvin.html |accessdate=14 June 2015 |quote= Thomson ultimately settled on an estimate that the Earth was 20-40 million years old }}</ref>, with personal preference for the lower value which is also the most quoted one.<ref>{{cite book |title= The Dating Game: One Man's Search for the Age of the Earth |author= Cherry Lewis |publisher= Cambridge University Press |year= 2012 |pages= 39 |isbn= 978-11076-59599 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=vU1yZQ03Kz0C }}</ref><ref name="West"/>
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),<ref name="KelvinNature1895">{{cite journal |title=On the Age of the Earth |author= Lord Kelvin |journal= Nature (reprint in SA)|date= January 3, 1895 |pages= 334–337 |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lord-kelvin-on-the-age-of-the-earth/ |accessdate=14 June 2015 |quote= 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°.}}</ref> he modified the value for supposed initial molten rock temperature to 1200 °C,<ref name="Richter"/> thus by the end of the 1800s narrowed down the interval to 20 ~ 40Ma,<ref name="chemeu">{{cite web |title=William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin |publisher=chemeurope.com |url=http://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/William_Thomson%2C_1st_Baron_Kelvin.html |accessdate=14 June 2015 |quote= Thomson ultimately settled on an estimate that the Earth was 20-40 million years old }}</ref> with personal preference for the lower value which is also the most quoted one.<ref name="West"/><ref>{{cite book |title= The Dating Game: One Man's Search for the Age of the Earth |author= Cherry Lewis |publisher= Cambridge University Press |year= 2012 |pages= 39 |isbn= 978-11076-59599 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=vU1yZQ03Kz0C }}</ref>
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
|publisher= Darwin Correspondence Database
|publisher= Darwin Correspondence Database
|url= http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-6585
|url= http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-6585
|quote= The physicist William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) had calculated the age of the earth based on its cooling from a molten ball. He concluded that the earth could not possibly have existed with its crust in a similar state as at present for the length of time proposed by geologists (see W. Thomson 1865). In Origin 5th ed., p. 379, [Charles Darwin] noted that based on Thomson's calculation of the age of the earth and Croll's estimation that 60 million years had passed since the Cambrian period, the time left for the pre-Cambrian period (140 million years) was `hardly sufficient for the development of the varied forms of life which certainly existed towards the close of the Cambrian period'.|accessdate=21 July 2015}}</ref> After the publication of Kelvins’s views, Darwin first halved, in the second edition of the ''[[Origin of species]]'' (p. 287), his own estimate of the time (''"far longer than 300 million years"'') allegedly elapsed since the latter part of the conjectured ''"[[Geologic_system#The_system|Cretaceous period]]"'', and later withdrew the discussion altogether from the third edition.<ref name="Holmes1913"/><ref>{{cite web
|quote= The physicist William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) had calculated the age of the earth based on its cooling from a molten ball. He concluded that the earth could not possibly have existed with its crust in a similar state as at present for the length of time proposed by geologists (see W. Thomson 1865). In Origin 5th ed., p. 379, [Charles Darwin] noted that based on Thomson's calculation of the age of the earth and Croll's estimation that 60 million years had passed since the Cambrian period, the time left for the pre-Cambrian period (140 million years) was `hardly sufficient for the development of the varied forms of life which certainly existed towards the close of the Cambrian period'.|accessdate=21 July 2015}}</ref> After the publication of Kelvins’s views, Darwin first halved, in the second edition of the ''[[Origin of species]]'' (p. 287), his own estimate of the time (''"far longer than 300 million years"'') allegedly elapsed since the latter part of the conjectured ''"[[Geologic system#The system|Cretaceous period]]"'', and later withdrew the discussion altogether from the third edition.<ref name="Holmes1913"/><ref>{{cite web
|title= Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., Letter 6841
|title= Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., Letter 6841
|author=Charles Darwin
|author=Charles Darwin
| style="padding:15px;" | ''"We do not say whether it is twenty million years or more, or less, but we say it is not indefinite. And we can say very definitely that it is not an inconceivably great number of millions of years."'' ''"We feel that there is no possibility of things going on for ever as they have done for the last six thousand years."''
| style="padding:15px;" | ''"We do not say whether it is twenty million years or more, or less, but we say it is not indefinite. And we can say very definitely that it is not an inconceivably great number of millions of years."'' ''"We feel that there is no possibility of things going on for ever as they have done for the last six thousand years."''
<div style="padding-left:40px;">— William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)<ref name=" OntheMiracleofLife">{{cite web |title= “On the Miracle of Life” [Actual title unknown.] Excerpt from an address at the annual meeting of the Christian Evidence Society |author=W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) |publisher= as quoted in Heros of the Telegraph by J. Munro.|year= 1889 |url= http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_miracle_of_life.html |accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote= I may refer to that old, but never uninteresting subject of the miracles of geology. Physical science does something for us here. St. Peter speaks of scoffers who said that ‘all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation;’ but the apostle affirms himself that ‘all these things shall be dissolved.’ It seems to me that even physical science absolutely demonstrates the scientific truth of these words. We feel that there is no possibility of things going on for ever as they have done for the last six thousand years. ... The science of dead matter, which has been the principal subject of my thoughts during my life, is, I may say, strenuous on this point, that the age of the earth is definite. We do not say whether it is twenty million years or more, or less, but we say it is not indefinite. And we can say very definitely that it is not an inconceivably great number of millions of years.}}</ref></div>
<div style="padding-left:40px;">— William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)<ref name=" OntheMiracleofLife">{{cite web |title= "On the Miracle of Life" [Actual title unknown.] Excerpt from an address at the annual meeting of the Christian Evidence Society |author=W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) |publisher= as quoted in Heros of the Telegraph by J. Munro.|year= 1889 |url= http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_miracle_of_life.html |accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote= I may refer to that old, but never uninteresting subject of the miracles of geology. Physical science does something for us here. St. Peter speaks of scoffers who said that ‘all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation;’ but the apostle affirms himself that ‘all these things shall be dissolved.’ It seems to me that even physical science absolutely demonstrates the scientific truth of these words. We feel that there is no possibility of things going on for ever as they have done for the last six thousand years. ... The science of dead matter, which has been the principal subject of my thoughts during my life, is, I may say, strenuous on this point, that the age of the earth is definite. We do not say whether it is twenty million years or more, or less, but we say it is not indefinite. And we can say very definitely that it is not an inconceivably great number of millions of years.}}</ref></div>
|}
|}
By about 1930, J. H. Jeans was arguing for an age of the Earth of around two billion years.<ref>Universal History of the World, p.76.</ref>
By about 1930, J. H. Jeans was arguing for an age of the Earth of around two billion years.<ref>Universal History of the World, p.76.</ref>
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.
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"''<ref name="KelvinRevisited"/> 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.
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"''<ref name="KelvinRevisited"/> 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.
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightgray; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | Subjective biased approach to data selection
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightgray; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | Subjective biased approach to data selection
|-
|-
| style="padding:15px;" |''"In general, dates in the correct ballpark are [[Paleoscience#Paleoscience.2C_worldview_of_the_scientists.2C_sociological_and_psychological_factors.2C_political_pressure|assumed to be correct]] and are published, but those in disagreement with other date are seldom published, nor are the discrepancies fully explained."''
| style="padding:15px;" |''"In general, dates in the correct ballpark are [[Paleoscience#Paleoscience.2C worldview of the scientists.2C sociological and psychological factors.2C political pressure|assumed to be correct]] and are published, but those in disagreement with other date are seldom published, nor are the discrepancies fully explained."''
<div style="padding-left:40px;">— Richard K. Mauger<ref>{{cite journal |title= K-Ar ages of biotites from tuffs in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado |author= Richard L. Mauger |journal= |publisher=University of Wyoming |year=1977 |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=17-42 (37)|url= https://geobookstore.uwyo.edu/sites/default/files/download/ConttoGeo_TOC.pdf |accessdate=13 June 2015 }}</ref> </div>
<div style="padding-left:40px;">— Richard K. Mauger<ref>{{cite journal |title= K-Ar ages of biotites from tuffs in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado |author= Richard L. Mauger |journal= |publisher=University of Wyoming |year=1977 |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=17–42 (37)|url= https://geobookstore.uwyo.edu/sites/default/files/download/ConttoGeo_TOC.pdf |accessdate=13 June 2015 }}</ref> </div>
|}
|}
In 1943 R.A. Daly of Harvard University published his authoritative paper ''“Meteorites and an Earth model,”'' where he studied the analogies between [[Rock (material)|terrestrial rocks]] and [[meteor]]ites, 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 [[asteroid]]s. 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.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Meteorites |author=Brian Mason|journal=American Scientist |volume=55| issue=4 |year=1967|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/27837038?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents}}</ref>
In 1943 R.A. Daly of Harvard University published his authoritative paper ''“Meteorites and an Earth model,”'' where he studied the analogies between [[Rock (material)|terrestrial rocks]] and [[meteor]]ites, 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 [[asteroid]]s. 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.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Meteorites |author=Brian Mason|journal=American Scientist |volume=55| issue=4 |year=1967|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/27837038?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents}}</ref>
|year=2007
|year=2007
|isbn=978-1590-521526
|isbn=978-1590-521526
|page=23-26
|pages=23–26
|pages=121
|pages=121
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=yvSEGgAACAAJ
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=yvSEGgAACAAJ
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 dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>
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 dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>
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 [[Scientific observation|observational]] [[Scientific evidence|evidence]] in [[astronomy]] to conflict with his calculations.<ref>{{cite journal |author=John Eddy quoted by R.G. Kazmann |title= It’s About Time: 4.5 Billion Years (report on Symposium at Louisiana State University)|publisher= Geotimes magazine (from 09/2008 renamed to Earth magazine) of American Geological Institute |year=1978 |issue=23 |pages=18-20|quote=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.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Jon Covey |title= Age of the Universe |publisher= Creation In The Crossfire |date= January 3, 2013 |url=http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/AgeOfUniverse/AgeOfTheUniverse.html |accessdate=December 30, 2014 |quote= 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.}}</ref> American astronomer Robert Jastrow maintains that for ''"the scientist who has lived by his faith in 'the power of reason', the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak"'' and ''"as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."''<ref name="Jastrow">{{cite book
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 [[Scientific observation|observational]] [[Scientific evidence|evidence]] in [[astronomy]] to conflict with his calculations.<ref>{{cite journal |author=John Eddy quoted by R.G. Kazmann |title= It’s About Time: 4.5 Billion Years (report on Symposium at Louisiana State University)|publisher= Geotimes magazine (from 09/2008 renamed to Earth magazine) of American Geological Institute |year=1978 |issue=23 |pages=18–20|quote=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.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Jon Covey |title= Age of the Universe |publisher= Creation In The Crossfire |date= January 3, 2013 |url=http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/AgeOfUniverse/AgeOfTheUniverse.html |accessdate=December 30, 2014 |quote= 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.}}</ref> American astronomer Robert Jastrow maintains that for ''"the scientist who has lived by his faith in 'the power of reason', the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak"'' and ''"as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."''<ref name="Jastrow">{{cite book
|author=Robert Jastrow
|author=Robert Jastrow
|title=God and the Astronomers
|title=God and the Astronomers
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
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).<ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, "Finding a home for stray fact", ''New Scientist'', July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
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).<ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, "Finding a home for stray fact", ''New Scientist'', July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging". <ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day — and much more scientific — successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging".<ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day — and much more scientific — successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>
Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[old-earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>
Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[old-earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>
*Peck WH, Valley JW, Wilde SA, and Graham CM (2000) Ion microprobe Evidence for Pre-4.4 Ga Continental Crust and Low Temperature Water/Rock Interaction. ''Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr'', vol 32, no. 7.
*Peck WH, Valley JW, Wilde SA, and Graham CM (2000) Ion microprobe Evidence for Pre-4.4 Ga Continental Crust and Low Temperature Water/Rock Interaction. ''Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr'', vol 32, no. 7.
== External Links ==
== External links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]