Changes

Age of the Earth (view source)

Revision as of 12:46, July 17, 2016

1,921 bytes added , 12:46, July 17, 2016

Turning science upside down

Line 47: Line 47:

|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 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, 197 |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>

Line 64: Line 64:

|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=XHoFAQAACAAJ

|isbn=1-59752-118-3

−

|quote= Professor John Redwood describes the commitments of seventeenth century Christians: “To the seventeenth-century biblical chronology, the account of Moses, and the science of geology were all part of the same world of learning. No one seeking to enquire into rocks or minerals, into earth history of formation of the earth’s configuration could afford to ignore or deny the value of his primary source, the Bible.” James Ussher in the early seventeenth century had based his dating of creation at 4004 B.C. on a detailed and literal reading of the historical accounts.}}</ref> and published it in his ''magnum opus'', ''[[The Annals of the World]]'' during the mid-1600s. Young Earth creationists, essentially adopting the same method as [[Nikola Tesla]] who was taught by his mother ''"to seek all truth in the Bible,"''<ref>{{cite book |title=My inventions: The autobiography of Nikola Tesla |author=Nikola Tesla |publisher=NuVision Publications LLC |year=1982 |pages=41 |isbn= |url=http://books.google.com/books?hl=no&id=uBafTxRVtkAC&q=Bible#v=snippet&q=Bible&f=false |quote= Up to that time I never realized that I possed any particular gift of discovery, but the Lord Rayleigh, whom I considered an ideal man of science, had said so, and if that was the case, I felt that I ~~shold~~ concentrate on some big idea. At this time, as many other times in the past, my tought turned towards my mother's teaching. The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible; therefore I devoted the next few months to the study of this work.}}</ref> still consider this date to be close to the actual date.<ref>{{cite web

+

|quote= Professor John Redwood describes the commitments of seventeenth century Christians: “To the seventeenth-century biblical chronology, the account of Moses, and the science of geology were all part of the same world of learning. No one seeking to enquire into rocks or minerals, into earth history of formation of the earth’s configuration could afford to ignore or deny the value of his primary source, the Bible.” James Ussher in the early seventeenth century had based his dating of creation at 4004 B.C. on a detailed and literal reading of the historical accounts.}}</ref> and published it in his ''magnum opus'', ''[[The Annals of the World]]'' during the mid-1600s. Young Earth creationists, essentially adopting the same method as [[Nikola Tesla]] who was taught by his mother ''"to seek all truth in the Bible,"''<ref>{{cite book |title=My inventions: The autobiography of Nikola Tesla |author=Nikola Tesla |publisher=NuVision Publications LLC |year=1982 |pages=41 |isbn= |url=http://books.google.com/books?hl=no&id=uBafTxRVtkAC&q=Bible#v=snippet&q=Bible&f=false |quote= Up to that time I never realized that I possed any particular gift of discovery, but the Lord Rayleigh, whom I considered an ideal man of science, had said so, and if that was the case, I felt that I should concentrate on some big idea. At this time, as many other times in the past, my tought turned towards my mother's teaching. The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible; therefore I devoted the next few months to the study of this work.}}</ref> still consider this date to be close to the actual date.<ref>{{cite web

|title=Creation Seminar 1 - Age of the Earth (FULL)

|author=Kent Hovind

Line 116: Line 116:

*''“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"/>

−

*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, 135 |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 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

Line 226: Line 226:

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 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 × 10<sup>9</sup>yr.''' 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"''.<ref>{{cite web |title= Age of meteorites and the earth |author= Claire Patterson |url=http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Patterson1956.pdf |accessdate= }}</ref> In spite of cautions and skepticism advised by the authors, this figure gradually became a scientific dogma that rarely anyone has dared to question.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Ralph W. Matthews |title=Radiometric dating and the age of the Earth |date=December 1982 |publisher=Creation |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=41–44 |quote=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. |accessdate=December 30, 2014}}</ref> 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]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Once upon a time … A Review of The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods by John Woodmorappe |author=Michael J. Oard |url=http://creation.com/once-upon-a-time |accessdate=November 9, 2014}}</ref>

+

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 × 10<sup>9</sup>yr.''' 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"''.<ref>{{cite web |title= Age of meteorites and the earth |author= Claire Patterson |url=http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Patterson1956.pdf |accessdate= }}</ref> In spite of cautions and skepticism advised by the authors, this faith-based figure gradually became a scientific dogma that rarely anyone has dared to question.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Ralph W. Matthews |title=Radiometric dating and the age of the Earth |date=December 1982 |publisher=Creation |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=41–44 |quote=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. |accessdate=December 30, 2014}}</ref> 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]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Once upon a time … A Review of The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods by John Woodmorappe |author=Michael J. Oard |url=http://creation.com/once-upon-a-time |accessdate=November 9, 2014}}</ref>

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:

Line 249: Line 249:

<div style="padding-left:40px;">— Georg Christoph Lichtenberg </div>

|}

−

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.<ref name=~~GALE~~>{{cite ~~web~~ |title=U-Pb studies of the appley bridge meteorite |author=Gale, N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R. |publisher=~~Nature Phys. Science~~ |year=~~1972~~ |volume=~~240 57~~ |url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/r741164v5162r447}}</ref> This methodological flaw is known as [[data torturing]].

+

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.<ref name= "GALE1972">{{cite journal |title=Uranium-Lead Chronology of Chrondritic Meteorites |author= Gale, N.H., Arden, J.W. and Hutchison, R. |

+

+

|url=http://www.nature.com/nature-physci/journal/v240/n99/pdf/physci240056a0.pdf

+

|quote= Considerable variations in uranium and lead concentrations are observed in different gram sized fragments of the same meteorite5·7,8, and fission track studies10 show that on the microscopic scale changes in uranium concentration by factors of 105 are observed over distances of ˜10˜2 cm. Because of experimental difficulties the uranium and lead concentrations and the lead isotopic abundances have not been measured hitherto in the same sample of a given meteorite, so that it is possible, but not proven, that the apparent lack of concordance between daughter and parent isotopes may be a direct consequence of these heterogeneities; this point of view has been well argued by Fisher11. Most of the early work on the determination of lead in meteorites was in any case badly hampered by analytical contamination by terrestrial lead.}}</ref><ref name="GALE1979">{{cite journal |title=U-Pb studies of the appley bridge meteorite |author=Gale, N.H., Arden, J.W. and Hutchison, R. |publisher=Naturwissenschaften |year=1979 |volume=66 |issue=8 |pages=419-420 |doi=10.1007/BF00368077 |url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/r741164v5162r447}}</ref> 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 dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>

+

===Turning science upside down===

+

After their acceptance of evolutionary dogma on ''“antiquity as a partially known factor”'' by faith, followers of evolutionary scientism started to assure that ''“the earth’s age must be very much greater than Kelvin calculated”''. Consequently, they commanded science to be turned upside down: ''”Kelvin’s problem must now be reversed”'' – instead of research finding the age of the earth, it should be already taken as given by their dogma instead, and the only role left to science is to confirm it and determine the thermal history of the earth that would be in accord with it.<ref name="Holmes1913"/>

+

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

AK

Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit

2,947

edits

Changes

Age of the Earth (view source)

Revision as of 12:46, July 17, 2016

Navigation menu

Search