Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − The '''age of the Earth''' is 4.54 ± 0.05 [[1,000,000,000|billion]] years {{nowrap|(4.54 × 10<sup>9</sup> years ± 1%).}}<ref name="USGS1997">{{cite web+ − | date=1997 | title=Age of the Earth+ − | url=http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html − | publisher=U.S. Geological Survey − | accessdate=2006-01-10 − | archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20051223072700/http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html| archivedate= 23 December 2005 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal − | last=Dalrymple | first=G. Brent − | authorlink=Brent Dalrymple − | title=The age of the Earth in the twentieth century: a problem (mostly) solved | journal=Special Publications, Geological Society of London − | date=2001 | volume=190 − | issue=1 | pages=205–221 − | doi=10.1144/GSL.SP.2001.190.01.14 |bibcode = 2001GSLSP.190..205D }} − </ref><ref>{{cite journal − | author= Manhesa, Gérard| author2= Allègre, Claude J.| author3= Dupréa, Bernard| author4= Hamelin, Bruno − | last-author-amp= yes | title=Lead isotope study of basic-ultrabasic layered complexes: Speculations about the age of the earth and primitive mantle characteristics − | authorlink2=Claude Allègre − | journal=[[Earth and Planetary Science Letters]] − | date=1980 | volume=47 − | issue= 3 | pages=370–382 − | doi=10.1016/0012-821X(80)90024-2 − | bibcode=1980E&PSL..47..370M − }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Braterman |first=Paul S. |publisher=Scientific American |year=2013 |title=How Science Figured Out the Age of Earth |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/ |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160412054317/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/ |archivedate=2016-04-12 |df= }}</ref> This age may represent the age of the Earth's [[accretion (astrophysics)|accretion]], of core formation, or of the material from which the Earth formed.<ref>{{cite journal − | last=Dalrymple | first=G. Brent − | authorlink=Brent Dalrymple − | title=The age of the Earth in the twentieth century: a problem (mostly) solved | journal=Special Publications, Geological Society of London − | date=2001 | volume=190 − | issue=1 | pages=205–221 − | doi=10.1144/GSL.SP.2001.190.01.14 |bibcode = 2001GSLSP.190..205D }} − − Following the development of radiometric age-dating in the early 20th century, [[uranium–lead dating|measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals]] showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.<ref name="Boltwood">{{cite journal+ − | last=Boltwood | first=B. B. − | authorlink=Bertram Boltwood | title=On the ultimate disintegration products of the radio-active elements. Part II. The disintegration products of uranium | journal=American Journal of Science − | date=1907 | volume=23 | pages=77–88 − | doi=10.2475/ajs.s4-23.134.78 − | issue=134 − }}<br />For the abstract, see: {{cite book − | date=1907 | title=Chemical Abstracts | pages=817 − | publisher=American Chemical Society − | url=https://books.google.com/?id=1su2AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA817 | accessdate=2008-12-19 − | location=New York, London − | author1=Chemical Abstracts Service, American Chemical Society }}</ref> − The oldest such minerals analyzed to date—small crystals of [[zircon]] from the [[Jack Hills]] of [[Western Australia]]—are at least 4.404 billion years old.<ref name="nature409">{{cite journal − | author=Wilde, S. A.| author2=Valley, J. W.| author3=Peck, W. H.| author4=Graham C. M. | title=Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago | journal=Nature − | date=2001-01-11 | volume=409 | pages=175–178 − | doi=10.1038/35051550 − | pmid=11196637 − | issue=6817 − }}</ref><ref>{{cite web − |author = Valley, John W. − |author2 = Peck, William H. − |author3 = Kin, Elizabeth M. − |url = http://www.geology.wisc.edu/outcrop/99/99_pdfs/iso_topics.pdf − |date = 1999 − |title = Zircons Are Forever − |work = The Outcrop, Geology Alumni Newsletter − |pages = 34–35 − |publisher = University of Wisconsin-Madison − |accessdate = 2008-12-22 − |deadurl = no − |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090226123751/http://www.geology.wisc.edu/outcrop/99/99_pdfs/iso_topics.pdf − |archivedate = 2009-02-26 − |df = − }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal − | author=Wyche, S.| author2=Nelson, D. R.| author3=Riganti, A. − | title=4350–3130 Ma detrital zircons in the Southern Cross Granite–Greenstone Terrane, Western Australia: implications for the early evolution of the Yilgarn Craton − | journal=Australian Journal of Earth Sciences − | date=2004 | volume=51 | issue=1 | pages=31–45 − | doi=10.1046/j.1400-0952.2003.01042.x |bibcode = 2004AuJES..51...31W }}</ref> [[Calcium–aluminium-rich inclusion]]s—the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the [[Solar System]]—are 4.567 billion years old,<ref>{{cite journal − | doi = 10.1126/science.1073950 − |date=Sep 2002 − | author = Amelin, Y − | author2 = Krot, An − | author3 = Hutcheon, Id − | author4 = Ulyanov, Aa − | title = Lead isotopic ages of chondrules and calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions − | volume = 297 − | issue = 5587 − | pages = 1678–83 − | issn = 0036-8075 − | pmid = 12215641 − | journal = Science − | bibcode=2002Sci...297.1678A}}</ref><ref name="nature436">{{cite journal − | display-authors=4| author=Baker, J.| author2=Bizzarro, M.| author3=Wittig, N.| author4=Connelly, J.| author5=Haack, H. | title=Early planetesimal melting from an age of 4.5662 Gyr for differentiated meteorites | journal=Nature | date=2005-08-25 − | volume=436 | pages=1127–1131 − | doi=10.1038/nature03882 − | pmid=16121173 − | issue=7054 | bibcode=2005Natur.436.1127B}}</ref> giving a lower limit for the [[Formation and evolution of the Solar System#Chronology|age of the solar system]]. − It is hypothesised that the accretion of Earth began soon after the formation of the calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Because the exact amount of time this accretion process took is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few million up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine. It is also difficult to determine the exact age of the [[oldest dated rocks|oldest rocks]] on Earth, exposed at the surface, as they are [[aggregate (geology)|aggregates]] of minerals of possibly different ages.+ − + − {{Life timeline}}+ − {{Main article|History of geology}} − {{Further information|Relative dating}} − Studies of [[stratum|strata]], the layering of rocks and earth, gave [[natural history|naturalists]] an appreciation that Earth may have been through many changes during its existence. These layers often contained [[fossil|fossilized remains]] of unknown creatures, leading some to interpret a progression of organisms from layer to layer.<ref>{{cite book+ − | first=Charles, Sir | last=Lyell + − | authorlink=Charles Lyell | date=1866+ − | title=Elements of Geology; or, The Ancient Changes of the Earth and its Inhabitants as Illustrated by Geological Monuments+ − | edition=Sixth | location=New York+ − | url=https://books.google.com/?id=pbkQAAAAIAAJ | accessdate=2008-12-19+ − | publisher=D. Appleton and company+ − }}</ref><ref name="stiebing">{{cite book+ − | first=William H. | last=Stiebing+ − | date=1994 | title=Uncovering the Past+ − | publisher=Oxford University Press US+ − | isbn=0-19-508921-9 }}</ref>+ + − + − | first=Michael E. | last=Brookfield | date=2004+ − | title=Principles of Stratigraphy | page=116+ − | publisher=Blackwell Publishing+ − | isbn=1-4051-1164-X }}</ref> In the 1790s, [[William Smith (geologist)|William Smith]] hypothesized that if two layers of rock at widely differing locations contained similar fossils, then it was very plausible that the layers were the same age.<ref>{{cite web+ − |last=Fuller+ − |first=J. G. C. M.+ − |date=2007-07-17+ − |publisher=The Geological Society − |work=Geoscientist − |accessdate=2008-12-19 − |url=http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/page1017.html − |title=Smith's other debt, John Strachey, William Smith and the strata of England 1719–1801 − |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20081124213722/http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/page1017.html − |archivedate=24 November 2008 − |deadurl=yes − |df= − }}</ref> William Smith's nephew and student, [[John Phillips (geologist)|John Phillips]], later calculated by such means that Earth was about 96 million years old.<ref>{{cite journal − | last=Burchfield | first=Joe D. − | title=The age of the Earth and the invention of geological time | journal=Geological Society, London, Special Publications | date=1998 − | volume=143 − | issue=1 | pages=137–143 − | doi=10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.143.01.12 |bibcode = 1998GSLSP.143..137B }}</ref> − In the mid-18th century, the naturalist [[Mikhail Lomonosov]] suggested that Earth had been created separately from, and several hundred thousand years before, the rest of the universe. Lomonosov's ideas were mostly speculative. In 1779 the [[Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon|Comte du Buffon]] tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth using an experiment: He created a small globe that resembled Earth in composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.+ − Other naturalists used these hypotheses to construct a [[History of the Earth|history of Earth]], though their timelines were inexact as they did not know how long it took to lay down stratigraphic layers.<ref name=Brookfield/> In 1830, geologist [[Charles Lyell]], developing ideas found in [[James Hutton]]'s works, popularized the concept that the features of Earth were in perpetual change, eroding and reforming continuously, and the rate of this change was roughly constant. This was a challenge to the traditional view, which saw the history of Earth as static,{{citation needed|date=March 2015}} with changes brought about by intermittent [[Disaster|catastrophes]]. Many naturalists were influenced by Lyell to become "uniformitarians" who believed that changes were constant and uniform.{{citation needed|date=March 2015}}+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + − {{Further information|William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin#Age of the Earth: geology and theology}} − In 1862, the physicist [[William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin]] published calculations that fixed the age of Earth at between 20 million and 400 million years.<ref name="England et al 2007"> − {{cite journal − | author = England, P.| author2 = Molnar, P.| author3 = Righter, F. − | title = John Perry's neglected critique of Kelvin's age for the Earth: A missed opportunity in geodynamics − | journal = GSA Today |date=January 2007 − | volume = 17 − | issue = 1 − | pages = 4–9 − | doi = 10.1130/GSAT01701A.1 }}</ref><ref>Dalrymple (1994) pp. 14–17, 38</ref> − He assumed that Earth had formed as a completely molten object, and determined the amount of time it would take for the near-surface to cool to its present temperature. His calculations did not account for [[Earth#Heat|heat produced]] via [[radioactive decay]] (a process then unknown to science) or, more significantly, [[convection]] inside the Earth, which allows more heat to escape from the interior to warm rocks near the surface.<ref name="England et al 2007"/> Even more constraining were Kelvin's estimates of the age of the Sun, which were based on estimates of its thermal output and a theory that the Sun obtains its energy from gravitational collapse; Kelvin estimated that the Sun is about 20 million years old.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=s4AWPFdyrWIC|title=Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth|last=Burchfield|first=Joe D.|date=1990-05-15|publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=|isbn=9780226080437|location=|pages=69 ff|language=en|via=|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180214145555/https://books.google.com/books?id=s4AWPFdyrWIC|archivedate=2018-02-14|df=}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|year=2000|title=Kelvin's age of the Earth paradox revisited|journal=[[Journal of Geophysical Research]]|volume=105|issue=B6|pages=13155–13158|bibcode=2000JGR...10513155S|doi=10.1029/2000JB900028|last1=Stacey|first1=Frank D.}}</ref> − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − Geologists such as [[Charles Lyell]] had trouble accepting such a short age for Earth. For biologists, even 100 million years seemed much too short to be plausible. In [[Charles Darwin|Darwin's]] theory of [[evolution]], the process of random heritable variation with cumulative [[natural selection|selection]] requires great durations of time. (According to modern biology, the total evolutionary history from the beginning of life to today has taken place since [[Timeline of evolution|3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago]], the amount of time which passed since the [[last universal ancestor]] of all living organisms as shown by geological dating.<ref name="Oldest Fossil Found">{{cite news |last=Borenstein |first=Seth |date=November 13, 2013 |title=Oldest fossil found: Meet your microbial mom |url=http://apnews.excite.com/article/20131113/DAA1VSC01.html |work=[[Excite]] |location=Yonkers, NY |publisher=[[Mindspark Interactive Network]] |agency=[[Associated Press]] |accessdate=2015-03-02 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150629230719/http://apnews.excite.com/article/20131113/DAA1VSC01.html |archivedate=June 29, 2015 |df= }})</ref>)+ + + − In a lecture in 1869, Darwin's great advocate, [[Thomas Huxley|Thomas H. Huxley]], attacked Thomson's calculations, suggesting they appeared precise in themselves but were based on faulty assumptions. The physicist [[Hermann von Helmholtz]] (in 1856) and astronomer [[Simon Newcomb]] (in 1892) contributed their own calculations of 22 and 18 million years respectively to the debate: they independently calculated the amount of time it would take for the Sun to condense down to its current diameter and brightness from the nebula of gas and dust from which it was born.<ref name=Dal14-17>Dalrymple (1994) pp. 14–17</ref> Their values were consistent with Thomson's calculations. However, they assumed that the Sun was only glowing from the heat of its [[gravitational contraction]]. The process of solar [[nuclear fusion]] was not yet known to science.+ + + − In 1895 [[John Perry (engineer)|John Perry]] challenged Kelvin's figure on the basis of his assumptions on conductivity, and [[Oliver Heaviside]] entered the dialogue, considering it "a vehicle to display the ability of his [[operational calculus|operator method]] to solve problems of astonishing complexity."<ref>[[Paul J. Nahin]] (1985) [http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4321749 Oliver Heaviside, Fractional Operators, and the Age of the Earth], [[IEEE Transactions on Education]] E-28(2): 94–104, link from [[IEEE Explore]]</ref>+ + − Other scientists backed up Thomson's figures. [[Charles Darwin]]'s son, the astronomer [[George Darwin|George H. Darwin]], proposed that Earth and [[Moon]] had broken apart in their early days when they were both molten. He calculated the amount of time it would have taken for [[tidal acceleration|tidal friction]] to give Earth its current 24-hour day. His value of 56 million years added additional evidence that Thomson was on the right track.<ref name=Dal14-17/>+ − + − ==Radiometric dating==+ − {{Main article|Radiometric dating}} − + − By their chemical nature, [[Rock (geology)|rock]] [[mineral]]s contain certain [[Chemical element|elements]] and not others; but in rocks containing radioactive isotopes, the process of [[radioactive decay]] generates exotic elements over time. By measuring the [[concentration]] of the stable end product of the decay, coupled with knowledge of the [[half life]] and initial concentration of the decaying element, the age of the rock can be calculated.<ref name=nichols>{{cite book | author=Nichols, Gary | title=Sedimentology and Stratigraphy | chapter=21.2 Radiometric Dating | pages=325–327 | publisher=John Wiley & Sons | date=2009 | isbn=978-1405193795}}</ref> Typical radioactive end products are [[argon]] from decay of [[potassium]]-40, and [[lead]] from decay of [[uranium]] and [[thorium]].<ref name=nichols/> If the rock becomes molten, as happens in Earth's [[Mantle (geology)|mantle]], such nonradioactive end products typically escape or are redistributed.<ref name=nichols/> Thus the age of the oldest terrestrial rock gives a minimum for the age of Earth, assuming that no rock has been intact for longer than the Earth itself. − + − In 1892, Thomson had been made [[Lord Kelvin]] in appreciation of his many scientific accomplishments. Kelvin calculated the age of the Earth by using [[heat conduction|thermal gradients]], and he arrived at an estimate of about 100 million years.<ref name="kp">{{cite journal | title=Kelvin, Perry and the Age of the Earth | first1=Philip C. | last1=England | first2=Peter | last2=Molnar | first3=Frank M. | last3=Richter | journal=American Scientist | volume=95 | issue=4 | date=2007 | pages=342–349 | doi=10.1511/2007.66.3755 | url=http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~pkoch/EART_206/09-0108/Supplemental/England%20et%2007%20AmSci%2095-342.pdf | deadurl=no | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100702103828/http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~pkoch/EART_206/09-0108/Supplemental/England%20et%2007%20AmSci%2095-342.pdf | archivedate=2010-07-02 | df= }}</ref> He did not realize that the Earth [[mantle (geology)|mantle]] was convecting, and this invalidated his estimate. In 1895, [[John Perry (engineer)|John Perry]] produced an age-of-Earth estimate of 2 to 3 billion years using a model of a convective mantle and thin crust.<ref name="kp" /> Kelvin stuck by his estimate of 100 million years, and later reduced it to about 20 million years. − The discovery of [[radioactivity]] introduced another factor in the calculation. After [[Henri Becquerel]]'s initial discovery in 1896, [[Maria Sklodowska-Curie|Marie]] and [[Pierre Curie]] discovered the radioactive elements [[polonium]] and [[radium]] in 1898; and in 1903, Pierre Curie and [[Albert Laborde]] announced that radium produces enough heat to melt its own weight in ice in less than an hour. Geologists quickly realized that this upset the assumptions underlying most calculations of the age of Earth.+ − These had assumed that the original heat of the Earth and Sun had dissipated steadily into space, but radioactive decay meant that this heat had been continually replenished. George Darwin and John Joly were the first to point this out, in 1903.<ref>{{cite book+ − | first=John | last=Joly | date=1909+ − | title=Radioactivity and Geology: An Account of the Influence of Radioactive Energy on Terrestrial History | edition=1st | page=36 − | publisher=Archibald Constable & Co., ltd − | location=London, UK }} Reprinted by BookSurge Publishing (2004) {{ISBN|1-4021-3577-7}}.</ref> − + − {{Refimprove section|date=October 2012}} − Radioactivity, which had overthrown the old calculations, yielded a bonus by providing a basis for new calculations, in the form of [[radiometric dating]]. − [[Image:Ernest Rutherford 1908.jpg|thumb|Ernest Rutherford in 1908.]] − [[Ernest Rutherford]] and [[Frederick Soddy]] jointly had continued their work on radioactive materials and concluded that radioactivity was due to a spontaneous transmutation of atomic elements. In radioactive decay, an element breaks down into another, lighter element, releasing alpha, beta, or [[Gamma ray|gamma]] [[radioactive decay|radiation]] in the process. They also determined that a particular isotope of a radioactive element decays into another element at a distinctive rate. This rate is given in terms of a "[[half-life]]", or the amount of time it takes half of a mass of that radioactive material to break down into its "decay product". − Some radioactive materials have short half-lives; some have long half-lives. [[Uranium]] and [[thorium]] have long half-lives, and so persist in Earth's crust, but radioactive elements with short half-lives have generally disappeared. This suggested that it might be possible to measure the age of Earth by determining the relative proportions of radioactive materials in geological samples. In reality, radioactive elements do not always decay into nonradioactive ("stable") elements directly, instead, decaying into other radioactive elements that have their own half-lives and so on, until they reach a [[stable element]]. These "[[decay chain]]s", such as the uranium-radium and thorium series, were known within a few years of the discovery of radioactivity and provided a basis for constructing techniques of radiometric dating.+ + + + + + + + + + + − The pioneers of radioactivity were chemist [[Bertram B. Boltwood]] and the energetic Rutherford. Boltwood had conducted studies of radioactive materials as a consultant, and when Rutherford lectured at Yale in 1904,<ref>{{cite book+ − | first=E. | last=Rutherford | date=1906+ − | title=Radioactive Transformations − | publisher=Charles Scribner's Sons − | location=London }} Reprinted by Juniper Grove (2007) {{ISBN|978-1-60355-054-3}}.</ref> Boltwood was inspired to describe the relationships between elements in various decay series. Late in 1904, Rutherford took the first step toward radiometric dating by suggesting that the [[alpha particle]]s released by radioactive decay could be trapped in a rocky material as [[helium]] atoms. At the time, Rutherford was only guessing at the relationship between alpha particles and helium atoms, but he would prove the connection four years later. − Soddy and [[Sir William Ramsay]] had just determined the rate at which radium produces alpha particles, and Rutherford proposed that he could determine the age of a rock sample by measuring its concentration of helium. He dated a rock in his possession to an age of 40 million years by this technique. Rutherford wrote,+ + + + + + − {{quote|I came into the room, which was half dark, and presently spotted Lord Kelvin in the audience and realized that I was in trouble at the last part of my speech dealing with the age of the Earth, where my views conflicted with his. To my relief, Kelvin fell fast asleep, but as I came to the important point, I saw the old bird sit up, open an eye, and cock a baleful glance at me! Then a sudden inspiration came, and I said, "Lord Kelvin had limited the age of the Earth, provided no new source was discovered. That prophetic utterance refers to what we are now considering tonight, radium!" Behold! the old boy beamed upon me.<ref>{{cite book+ − | first=Arthur Stewart | last=Eve | date=1939+ − | title=Rutherford: Being the life and letters of the Rt. Hon. Lord Rutherford, O. M.+ − | publisher=Cambridge University Press+ − | location=Cambridge }}</ref>}}+ − Rutherford assumed that the rate of decay of radium as determined by Ramsay and Soddy was accurate, and that helium did not escape from the sample over time. Rutherford's scheme was inaccurate, but it was a useful first step.+ + − Boltwood focused on the end products of decay series. In 1905, he suggested that [[lead]] was the final stable product of the decay of radium. It was already known that radium was an intermediate product of the decay of uranium. Rutherford joined in, outlining a decay process in which radium emitted five alpha particles through various intermediate products to end up with lead, and speculated that the radium-lead decay chain could be used to date rock samples. Boltwood did the legwork, and by the end of 1905 had provided dates for 26 separate rock samples, ranging from 92 to 570 million years. He did not publish these results, which was fortunate because they were flawed by measurement errors and poor estimates of the half-life of radium. Boltwood refined his work and finally published the results in 1907.<ref name="Boltwood" />+ − Boltwood's paper pointed out that samples taken from comparable layers of strata had similar lead-to-uranium ratios, and that samples from older layers had a higher proportion of lead, except where there was evidence that lead had [[Leaching (chemical science)|leached]] out of the sample. His studies were flawed by the fact that the decay series of thorium was not understood, which led to incorrect results for samples that contained both uranium and thorium. However, his calculations were far more accurate than any that had been performed to that time. Refinements in the technique would later give ages for Boltwood's 26 samples of 410 million to 2.2 billion years.<ref name="Boltwood" />+ − + − ===Arthur Holmes establishes radiometric dating=== − Although Boltwood published his paper in a prominent geological journal, the geological community had little interest in radioactivity.{{citation needed|date=March 2015}} Boltwood gave up work on radiometric dating and went on to investigate other decay series. Rutherford remained mildly curious about the issue of the age of Earth but did little work on it. − − [[Robert Strutt, 4th Baron Rayleigh|Robert Strutt]] tinkered with Rutherford's helium method until 1910 and then ceased. However, Strutt's student [[Arthur Holmes]] became interested in radiometric dating and continued to work on it after everyone else had given up. Holmes focused on lead dating, because he regarded the helium method as unpromising. He performed measurements on rock samples and concluded in 1911 that the oldest (a sample from Ceylon) was about 1.6 billion years old.<ref>Dalrymple (1994) p. 74</ref> These calculations were not particularly trustworthy. For example, he assumed that the samples had contained only uranium and no lead when they were formed. − − More important research was published in 1913. It showed that elements generally exist in multiple variants with different masses, or "[[isotope]]s". In the 1930s, isotopes would be shown to have nuclei with differing numbers of the neutral particles known as "[[neutrons]]". In that same year, other research was published establishing the rules for radioactive decay, allowing more precise identification of decay series. − − Many geologists felt these new discoveries made radiometric dating so complicated as to be worthless.{{citation needed|date=March 2015}} Holmes felt that they gave him tools to improve his techniques, and he plodded ahead with his research, publishing before and after the First World War. His work was generally ignored until the 1920s, though in 1917 [[Joseph Barrell]], a professor of geology at Yale, redrew geological history as it was understood at the time to conform to Holmes's findings in radiometric dating. Barrell's research determined that the layers of strata had not all been laid down at the same rate, and so current rates of geological change could not be used to provide accurate timelines of the history of Earth.{{citation needed|date=March 2015}} − − Holmes' persistence finally began to pay off in 1921, when the speakers at the yearly meeting of the [[British Association for the Advancement of Science]] came to a rough consensus that Earth was a few billion years old, and that radiometric dating was credible. Holmes published ''The Age of the Earth, an Introduction to Geological Ideas'' in 1927 in which he presented a range of 1.6 to 3.0 billion years. No great push to embrace radiometric dating followed, however, and the die-hards in the geological community stubbornly resisted. They had never cared for attempts by physicists to intrude in their domain, and had successfully ignored them so far.<ref>[http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Badash_AgeEarthDebate_SciAmer89.pdf The Age of the Earth Debate Badash, L ''Scientific American'' 1989 esp p95] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161105173355/http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Badash_AgeEarthDebate_SciAmer89.pdf |date=2016-11-05 }}</ref> The growing weight of evidence finally tilted the balance in 1931, when the [[United States National Research Council|National Research Council]] of the US [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Academy of Sciences]] decided to resolve the question of the age of Earth by appointing a committee to investigate. Holmes, being one of the few people on Earth who was trained in radiometric dating techniques, was a committee member, and in fact wrote most of the final report.<ref name = Dal7778>Dalrymple (1994) pp. 77–78</ref> − − Thus, Arthur Holmes' report concluded that radioactive dating was the only reliable means of pinning down geological time scales. Questions of bias were deflected by the great and exacting detail of the report. It described the methods used, the care with which measurements were made, and their error bars and limitations.{{citation needed|date=March 2015}} − − ===Modern radiometric dating=== − [[Radiometric dating]] continues to be the predominant way scientists date geologic timescales. Techniques for radioactive dating have been tested and fine-tuned on an ongoing basis since the 1960s. Forty or so different dating techniques have been utilized to date, working on a wide variety of materials. Dates for the same sample using these different techniques are in very close agreement on the age of the material.{{citation needed|date=March 2015}} − − Possible [[radioactive contamination|contamination]] problems do exist, but they have been studied and dealt with by careful investigation, leading to sample preparation procedures being minimized to limit the chance of contamination.{{citation needed|date=March 2015}} − − ====Why meteorites were used==== − An age of 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by [[Clair Cameron Patterson]] using uranium-lead isotope dating (specifically [[lead-lead dating]]) on several meteorites including the [[Canyon Diablo (meteorite)|Canyon Diablo meteorite]] and published in 1956.<ref name="Patterson">{{cite journal | last=Patterson | first=Claire | title=Age of meteorites and the earth | journal=Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta | url=http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf | date=1956 | volume=10 | issue=4 | pages=230–237 | accessdate=2009-07-07 | doi=10.1016/0016-7037(56)90036-9 | bibcode=1956GeCoA..10..230P | deadurl=no | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100621045217/http://es.ucsc.edu/%7Ercoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf | archivedate=2010-06-21 | df= }}</ref> − [[File:Paterson isochron animation.gif|thumb|left|350px|Lead isotope isochron diagram showing data used by Patterson to determine the age of the Earth in 1956.]] − The quoted age of Earth is derived, in part, from the Canyon Diablo meteorite for several important reasons and is built upon a modern understanding of cosmochemistry built up over decades of research. − − Most geological samples from Earth are unable to give a direct date of the formation of Earth from the solar nebula because Earth has undergone differentiation into the core, mantle, and crust, and this has then undergone a long history of mixing and unmixing of these sample reservoirs by [[plate tectonics]], [[weathering]] and [[hydrothermal circulation]]. − − All of these processes may adversely affect isotopic dating mechanisms because the sample cannot always be assumed to have remained as a closed system, by which it is meant that either the parent or daughter [[nuclide]] (a species of atom characterised by the number of neutrons and protons an atom contains) or an intermediate daughter nuclide may have been partially removed from the sample, which will skew the resulting isotopic date. To mitigate this effect it is usual to date several minerals in the same sample, to provide an [[isochron]]. Alternatively, more than one dating system may be used on a sample to check the date. − − Some meteorites are furthermore considered to represent the primitive material from which the accreting solar disk was formed.<ref>{{cite conference | author=Carlson, R. W.| author2=Tera, F. − | title=Lead-Lead Constraints on the Timescale of Early Planetary Differentiation − | booktitle=Conference Proceedings, Origin of the Earth and Moon | page=6 − | publisher=Lunar and Planetary Institute − | date=December 1–3, 1998 − | location=Houston, Texas | url=http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4066.pdf |accessdate=2008-12-22 | archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20081216214311/http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4066.pdf| archivedate= 16 December 2008 | deadurl= no}}</ref> Some have behaved as closed systems (for some isotopic systems) soon after the solar disk and the planets formed.{{citation needed|date=March 2015}} To date, these assumptions are supported by much scientific observation and repeated isotopic dates, and it is certainly a more robust hypothesis than that which assumes a terrestrial rock has retained its original composition. − − Nevertheless, ancient [[Archean|Archaean]] lead [[ores]] of [[galena]] have been used to date the formation of Earth as these represent the earliest formed lead-only minerals on the planet and record the earliest homogeneous lead-lead isotope systems on the planet. These have returned age dates of 4.54 billion years with a precision of as little as 1% margin for error.<ref>Dalrymple (1994) pp. 310–341</ref> − − Statistics for several meteorites that have undergone isochron dating are as follows:<ref name="BGDarymple">{{cite journal − | author=Dalrymple, Brent G. − | title=Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of the Earth and Its Cosmic Surroundings − | date=2004 − | publisher=Stanford University Press − | isbn = 978-0-8047-4933-6 − | pages = 147, 169 − }} − </ref> − − {| <!-- is [[Figure space]], the width of one digit. --> − !colspan=4 align=left| 1. St. Severin (ordinary chondrite) − |- − |width=1em| || 1. || Pb-Pb isochron || 4.543 ± 0.019 billion years − |- − | || 2. || Sm-Nd isochron || 4.55 ± 0.33 billion years − |- − | || 3. || Rb-Sr isochron || 4.51 ± 0.15 billion years − |- − | || 4. ||| Re-Os isochron || 4.68 ± 0.15 billion years − |- − !colspan=4 align=left| 2. Juvinas (basaltic achondrite) − |- − | || 1. || Pb-Pb isochron || 4.556 ± 0.012 billion years − |- − | || 2. || Pb-Pb isochron || 4.540 ± 0.001 billion years − |- − | || 3. || Sm-Nd isochron || 4.56 ± 0.08 billion years − |- − | || 4. || Rb-Sr isochron || 4.50 ± 0.07 billion years − |- − !colspan=4 align=left| 3. Allende (carbonaceous chondrite) − |- − | || 1. || Pb-Pb isochron || 4.553 ± 0.004 billion years − |- − | || 2. || Ar-Ar age spectrum || 4.52 ± 0.02 billion years − |- − | || 3. || Ar-Ar age spectrum || 4.55 ± 0.03 billion years − |- − | || 4. || Ar-Ar age spectrum || 4.56 ± 0.05 billion years − |} − − ====Canyon Diablo meteorite==== − {{Further information|Canyon Diablo (meteorite)}}{{Further information|Age of the Solar System}} − − [[Image:Barringer Crater aerial photo by USGS.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Meteor Crater|Barringer Crater]], Arizona where the Canyon Diablo meteorite was found.]] − − The [[Canyon Diablo (canyon)|Canyon Diablo]] meteorite was used because it is both large and representative of a particularly rare type of meteorite that contains [[sulfide]] minerals (particularly [[troilite]], FeS), metallic [[nickel]]-[[iron]] alloys, plus silicate minerals. − This is important because the presence of the three mineral phases allows investigation of isotopic dates using samples that provide a great separation in concentrations between parent and daughter nuclides. This is particularly true of uranium and lead. Lead is strongly [[chalcophile|chalcophilic]] and is found in the sulfide at a much greater concentration than in the silicate, versus uranium. Because of this segregation in the parent and daughter nuclides during the formation of the meteorite, this allowed a much more precise date of the formation of the solar disk and hence the planets than ever before. − − [[Image:Canyon-diablo-meteorite.jpg|thumb|upright|left|Fragment of the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite.]] − − The age determined from the Canyon Diablo meteorite has been confirmed by hundreds of other age determinations, from both terrestrial samples and other meteorites.<ref>{{cite conference − | author=Terada, K.| author2=Sano, Y. − | title=In-situ ion microprobe U-Pb dating of phosphates in H-chondrites | booktitle=Proceedings, Eleventh Annual V. M. Goldschmidt Conference − | publisher=Lunar and Planetary Institute − | date=May 20–24, 2001 − | location=Hot Springs, Virginia | url=http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/gold2001/pdf/3306.pdf | accessdate=2008-12-22 − | bibcode=2001eag..conf.3306T | archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20081216214310/http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/gold2001/pdf/3306.pdf| archivedate= 16 December 2008 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref> The meteorite samples, however, show a spread from 4.53 to 4.58 billion years ago. This is interpreted as the duration of formation of the solar nebula and its collapse into the solar disk to form the Sun and the planets. This 50 million year time span allows for accretion of the planets from the original solar dust and meteorites. − − The moon, as another extraterrestrial body that has not undergone plate tectonics and that has no atmosphere, provides quite precise age dates from the samples returned from the Apollo missions. Rocks returned from the Moon have been dated at a maximum of 4.51 billion years old. [[Martian meteorites]] that have landed upon Earth have also been dated to around 4.5 billion years old by [[lead-lead dating]]. Lunar samples, since they have not been disturbed by weathering, plate tectonics or material moved by organisms, can also provide dating by direct [[electron microscope]] examination of [[cosmic ray]] tracks. The accumulation of dislocations generated by high energy cosmic ray particle impacts provides another confirmation of the isotopic dates. [[Environmental radioactivity#Activation products from cosmic rays|Cosmic ray dating]] is only useful on material that has not been melted, since melting erases the crystalline structure of the material, and wipes away the tracks left by the particles. − − Altogether, the concordance of age dates of both the earliest terrestrial lead reservoirs and all other reservoirs within the Solar System found to date are used to support the fact that Earth and the rest of the Solar System formed at around 4.53 to 4.58 billion years ago.{{citation needed|date=March 2015}} − − ==See also== − {{div col|colwidth=20em}} − * [[Age of the universe]] − * [[Geochronology]] − * [[History of Earth]] − * [[Natural history]] − * [[Oldest dated rocks]] − * [[Timeline of natural history]] − {{div col end}} − − ==References== − {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} − − ==Bibliography== − * {{cite book − | first = G. Brent − | last = Dalrymple − | date = 1994-02-01 − | title = The Age of the Earth − | publisher = Stanford University Press − | isbn = 0-8047-2331-1 }} − − ==Further reading== − * Baadsgaard, H.; Lerbekmo, J.F.; Wijbrans, J.R., 1993. Multimethod radiometric age for a bentonite near the top of the Baculites reesidei Zone of southwestern Saskatchewan (Campanian-Maastrichtian stage boundary?). ''Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences'', v.30, p. 769–775. − * Baadsgaard, H. and Lerbekmo, J.F., 1988. A radiometric age for the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary based on K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb ages of bentonites from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Montana. ''Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences'', v.25, p. 1088–1097. − * Eberth, D.A. and Braman, D., 1990. Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and vertebrate paleontology of the Judith River Formation (Campanian) near Muddy Lake, west-central Saskatchewan. ''Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology'', v.38, no.4, p. 387–406. − * Goodwin, M.B. and Deino, A.L., 1989. The first radiometric ages from the Judith River Formation (Upper Cretaceous), Hill County, Montana. ''Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences'', v.26, p. 1384–1391. − * Gradstein, F. M.; Agterberg, F.P.; Ogg, J.G.; Hardenbol, J.; van Veen, P.; Thierry, J. and Zehui Huang., 1995. A Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous time scale. IN: Bergren, W. A. ; Kent, D.V.; Aubry, M-P. and Hardenbol, J. (eds.), ''Geochronology, Time Scales, and Global Stratigraphic Correlation''. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication No. 54, p. 95–126. − * Harland, W.B., Cox, A.V.; Llewellyn, P.G.; Pickton, C.A.G.; Smith, A.G.; and Walters, R., 1982. ''A Geologic Time Scale'': 1982 edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 131p. − * Harland, W.B.; [[Richard Lee Armstrong|Armstrong, R.L.]]; Cox, A.V.; Craig, L.E.; Smith, A.G.; Smith, D.G., 1990. ''A Geologic Time Scale'', 1989 edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, p. 1–263. {{ISBN|0-521-38765-5}} − * Harper, C.W., Jr., 1980. ''Relative age inference in paleontology''. Lethaia, v. 13, p. 239–248. − * Obradovich, J.D., 1993. A Cretaceous time scale. IN: Caldwell, W.G.E. and Kauffman, E.G. (eds.). ''Evolution of the Western Interior Basin''. Geological Association of Canada, Special Paper 39, p. 379–396. − * Palmer, Allison R. (compiler), 1983. The Decade of North American Geology 1983 Geologic Time Scale.'' Geology'', v. 11, p. 503–504. September 12, 2004. − * Powell, James Lawrence, 2001, ''Mysteries of Terra Firma: the Age and Evolution of the Earth'', Simon & Schuster, {{ISBN|0-684-87282-X}} − − ==External links== − * [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html TalkOrigins.org] − * [http://www.vectorsite.net/ Vectorsite.net]—''Initial version of this article was based on a public domain text by Greg Goebel'' − * [http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html USGS preface on the Age of the Earth] − * [http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nasa1.html NASA exposition on the age of Martian meteorites] − * {{In Our Time|Ageing the Earth|p005493g|Ageing_the_Earth}} − * [http://www.fleming-group.com/Misc/Pre-1900%20Non-Religious%20Estimates%20of%20the%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.pdf Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth] − {{Earth}} − {{Portal bar|Astronomy|Earth sciences}} − − {{DEFAULTSORT:Age Of The Earth}} − [[Category:Geochronology]] − −
Counterexamples to an Old Earth (view source)
Revision as of 15:03, October 23, 2018
, 15:03, October 23, 2018Reverted edits by a hidden user to last revision by DavidB4-bot
[[File:Moon2.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|"Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity ([[Roche limit]]) at less than a quarter of their supposed age."<ref name="Age of the earth">[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]</ref> see: [http://creation.com/the-moon-the-light-that-rules-the-night Recession of the moon from the earth] ]]
It takes only one counterexample to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]]. Most of the "evidence" for an [[Old Earth]] is based on claims that lack falsifiability, such as [[radiometric dating]], and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in a court of law. If each of the following 62 counterexamples to an Old Earth were to have merely a 10% chance of being valid, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than one half of 1%. In other words, '''''the Earth must be young with a likelihood of 99.6%'''''.<ref>The same analysis could be applied to the [[Young Earth]] theory, but no valid counterexamples have been found in centuries of atheist attempts. In addition, there are over 100 proofs of a young [[earth]] and [[universe]] (See [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth ''Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe'']).</ref>
</ref> This dating is based on evidence from [[Radiometric dating|radiometric age-dating]] of [[meteorite]]<ref>{{cite book |last=Hedman |first=Matthew |title=The Age of Everything |chapter=9: Meteorites and the Age of the Solar System |pages=142–162 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=2007 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ciMyFqO--VMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+age+of+everything&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSz5OSpJLNAhVm2oMKHVKVAyQQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=The%20age%20of%20everything&f=false |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180214145555/https://books.google.com/books?id=ciMyFqO--VMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+age+of+everything&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSz5OSpJLNAhVm2oMKHVKVAyQQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=The%20age%20of%20everything&f=false |archivedate=2018-02-14 |df= }}</ref> material and is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and [[Moon|lunar]] [[Moon rock|samples]].
In addition, much additional scientific evidence points to a [[Young earth creationism|young]] [[Age of the Earth|age of the earth]] and the universe, and the biblical creation organization [[Creation Ministries International]] published articles entitled ''[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]'' and [http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] both of which summarize some of the evidence for a young age of the earth. Further arguments can be found in the article [[arguments for a recent creation]]
The motivation for [[atheist]]s to insist on falsely teaching that the Earth is old is to pull students away from [[God]]'s immediate presence and to turn them away from [[Jesus Christ]]. Atheists are also motivated, and biased, by the fact that their [[evolutionism|evolutionist]] theories require the world to be some implausible billions of years old.
== Development of modern geologic concepts ==
== Counterexamples ==
The growing (but very non-exhaustive) list of counterexamples to the theory of an [[Old Earth]] includes:
=== History ===
[[File:Sphinx pyramid.jpg|thumb|200px|Although frequently cited by Old Earth supporters against a young earth, [[New Chronology|revised and well-supported Egyptian chronology]] actually provides strong evidence in favor of a young Earth.]]
# The oldest direct evidence of life—written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc.—is no older than about 3,000 B.C. and certainly younger than 4,000 B.C., the approximate date of origin of the Earth, based on a straightforward reading of the [[Bible]]. While adherents to a belief in an old earth claim of artifacts existing further back than 4,000 B.C., those people come to their conclusions due to their presuppositions (i.e. the lens through which they see the world) that evolution is true, that the Earth is old, and that humans were originally dumb and became more intelligent as time went on.<ref>Mortenson, Terry (July 7, 2015). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/trillions-of-artifacts/ Trillions of “Artifacts”—Who’s Really Got the Problem?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved April 13, 2017.</ref><ref>Climer, Phillip (May 23, 2012). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/archaeology-and-the-bible/ Archaeology and the Bible]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved April 13, 2017.</ref>
# Over 270 cultures have flood legends that distinctly resemble the biblical flood account.<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/legends-of-the-flood/ Legends of the Flood]. ''Answers in Genesis''. January 30, 2014. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref><ref>White, Monty (March 29, 2007). [https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/flood-legends/ Flood Legends]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref> While critics like to say the biblical flood account is descended from other stories, in reality, it is the other way around, as the biblical flood account is far superior to any flood legend in multiple ways.<ref>Lacey, Troy & Anderson jr, Lee (October 1, 2013). [https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/the-genesis-flood-not-just-another-legend/ The Genesis Flood—Not Just Another Legend]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref> Creation legends also exist, but once again, the biblical account is superior.<ref name="AncientMyths">Ham, Steve (March 29, 2011). [https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/creation-myths/is-genesis-111-a-derivation-from-ancient-myths/ Is Genesis 1–11 a Derivation from Ancient Myths?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref>
# Noah, his sons, and his further descendants mentioned in the Bible are found and named in numerous cultures and there is much extra-biblical evidence for their existence, showing that they were real people who made a real impact.<ref name="Dispersion">Hodge, Bodie (August 19, 2010). [https://answersingenesis.org/tower-of-babel/was-the-dispersion-at-babel-a-real-event/ Chapter 28 - Was the Dispersion at Babel a Real Event?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref> There are royal genealogies in Europe that trace their family lines back to Noah.<ref name="Dispersion"/>
# Ancient cultures all over the world built ziggurat-like structures, such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Mesoamericans. This is strong evidence that they originated from one area and that the Tower of Babel was a real, ziggurat-shaped tower.<ref name="Dispersion"/>
# In history, the closer one gets to Babel, geographically speaking, the earlier the civilizations in that area first developed, giving strong evidence that all civilizations were originally from Babel and were dispersed from that location all over the Earth.<ref name="Dispersion"/><ref name="SecretsLandis">Landis, Don (2015). [https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/secrets-ancient-man/?sku=10-2-463 ''Secrets of Ancient Man'']. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890518663.</ref> Even secular historians accept this<ref>http://www.ancient.eu/image/1068/</ref> and call Sumer the "cradle of civilization".<ref>Mark, Joshua J. (April 28, 2011). [http://www.ancient.eu/sumer/ Sumer]. ''Ancient History Encyclopedia''. Retrieved September 5, 2016.</ref><ref>Mark, Joshua J. (September 2, 2009). [http://www.ancient.eu/Mesopotamia/ Mesopotamia]. "'Ancient History Encyclopedia''. Retrieved September 5, 2016.</ref>
# The Sumerian King List is remarkably similar to the biblical genealogy in Genesis 5. There is a very close correlation between the two lists (if one excludes Adam and Noah in the Bible), the flood is mentioned, and the kings all have long life-spans, providing strong evidence that the Sumerians recognized the history recorded in the Bible as fact.<ref name="AncientMyths"/>
# While many evolutionists point to [[Egyptian chronology|Egyptian history]] (which, according to them, dates back long before the biblical creation and flood dates) as proof against a young Earth, a growing number of academics are recognizing that many of the traditional sources for Egyptian history are both inaccurate and misinterpreted, and [[New Chronology|revised dates for Egyptian history]] align remarkably well with biblical history.<ref>McClellan, Matt (August 24, 2011). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/ancient-egyptian-chronology-and-the-book-of-genesis/ Ancient Egyptian Chronology and the Book of Genesis]. ''Answers Research Journal''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref><ref>Mitchell, Elizabeth (July 22, 2010). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/doesnt-egyptian-chronology-prove-bible-unreliable/ Chapter 24 - Doesn’t Egyptian Chronology Prove That the Bible Is Unreliable?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref><ref>Mitchell, Elizabeth (April 1, 2008). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/dating-the-pyramids/ Dating the Pyramids]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref> Additionally, radiocarbon dating has given additional evidence that the Egyptian civilization began more recently than originally thought.<ref>Mitchell, Elizabeth (September 19, 2013). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/radiocarbon-dating-shortens-the-timeline-for-ancient-egypt/ Radiocarbon Dating Shortens the Timeline for Ancient Egypt]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref>
# Because of their worldview, evolutionists believe that ancient man was not as intelligent as today and did not possess superior technology. However, many archaeological findings in numerous ancient civilizations have proven otherwise—that ancient man was very intelligent, possibly even more so than modern day society, as well as more technologically advanced in some ways.<ref name="SecretsLandis"/><ref>Landis, Don (2012). [https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/genius-ancient-man/?sku=10-2-423& ''The Genius of Ancient Man'']. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890516775.</ref><ref>Ham, Ken (December 31, 2012). [https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-technology/geniuses-not-brutes/ Geniuses, Not Brutes!]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref>
# Many different cultures throughout history have legends and realistic accounts from historians of dragons. There is very strong evidence that dinosaurs were alive and a very real part of ancient cultures (and even some more recent ones), affirming a young Earth and the biblical account of origins.<ref>Hodge, Bodie (October 1, 2011). [https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dragon-legends/dragon-legends-truths-behind-the-tales/ Dragon Legends—Truths Behind the Tales]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref><ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dragon-legends/dragons-fact-or-fable/ Dragons: Fact or Fable?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref> In fact, there have been some reports of dinosaurs living in the remote jungles of [[Africa]] today.<ref>Ham, Ken (October 25, 2007). [https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/what-really-happened-to-the-dinosaurs/ Chapter 12 - What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved August 18, 2016.</ref>
# There is a striking similarity in the way diverse, worldwide cultures see [[constellations]]. In very diverse cultures, the constellations that the people see are the same, and the meanings of many are the same, including the Big and Little Dippers, showing that people had to have developed them together, rather than on opposite directions of the globe.<ref name="Nelson">Nelson, Brooke C. (October 5, 2016). [https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/do-big-and-little-dipper-support-bible-timeline/ Do the Big and Little Dipper Support the Bible’s Timeline?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved October 16, 2016.</ref><ref name="Henry">Henry, Jonathan F. (December 2008). [http://creation.com/constellations-a-legacy-of-babel Constellations: legacy of the dispersion from Babel]. ''Creation.com'' (taken from ''Journal of Creation 22(3):93–100''). Retrieved October 16, 2016.</ref> Academics (including secular ones) have been able to trace back, through the [[Precession of the equinoxes|precession]] of the Earth, when the constellations were developed by man, and the dates found have been, roughly speaking, between 2800 BC and 2100 BC, right in line with the date of the dispersion at Babel.<ref name="Nelson"/><ref name="Henry"/> Additionally, it has also been found that the latitude of where the developers of the constellations lived was, roughly speaking, between 30 and 42 degrees latitude, again in line with the locations of Ararat and Babel.<ref name="Nelson"/><ref name="Henry"/>
# It has been well-documented that people in the past vastly exceeded modern humans physically and mentally.<ref>Pierce, Larry (April 5, 2017). [https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/what-were-early-post-flood-people-like/ What Were Early Post-Flood People Like?]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved April 5, 2017.</ref>
[[Nicolas Steno]] in the 17th century was one of the first naturalists to appreciate the connection between fossil remains and strata.<ref name="stiebing" /> His observations led him to formulate important [[stratigraphy|stratigraphic]] concepts (i.e., the "[[law of superposition]]" and the "[[principle of original horizontality]]").<ref name=Brookfield>{{cite book
=== Astronomy ===
# The [[moon|Moon's]] orbit is a very strong counterexample: the moon is receding from the [[Earth]] at a rate<ref>"Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year." [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994).</ref> that means it cannot be more than 1.37 billion years old, much less than the often claimed 4.5 billion years.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-moon-the-light-that-rules-the-night Recession of the moon from the earth]</ref> In fact, this assumes the moon would star off touching the earth and so within the [[Roche limit]], which would not be possible without causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the Moon being as they are today. Additionally, the [[moon]]'s orbit is becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stability,<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref> which further disproves the theory of an [[Old Earth]].
# [[Spiral galaxies]] appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of [[dark matter]] can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.
# The expansion of the universe is accelerating, something that would not occur if the [[Big Bang]] had happened billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent.<ref>Some insist there is hokey, unseen "[[dark energy]]" and "[[dark matter]]" to try to explain the acceleration.</ref>
# The planetary orbits in the Solar System - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.<ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."]. (Newsweek has inexplicably taken down its article, but it is quoted by Google and other links)</ref><ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars, and Venus with the Earth] by J. Laskar & M. Gastineau, ''Nature'' 459, 817-819 (11 June 2009). Believers in an Old Earth speculate that the instability would not result in problems in a billion years, but other computer simulations could be developed to demonstrate multi-body instability for the solar system far more recent than that.</ref>
# At least one [[spiral galaxy]] spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age that is too young to have generated the tail, and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.<ref>[http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"]</ref>
# The oldest star in the universe is only 6000 light years away from Earth, precisely as predicted by the [[Bible]] and a Young Earth model.<ref>http://www.astrobio.net/also-in-news/the-oldest-star-in-the-known-universe/</ref>
# The surface of [[Pluto]] was found during the [[New Horizons mission]] to have far fewer craters than expected, and it was found to have a nitrogen atmosphere that is leaking away at too fast a rate for it to be millions or billions of years old.<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/solar-system/plutos-young-surface/ Pluto’s Young Surface]. ''Answers in Genesis'' (from ''Answers Magazine''). October 1, 2015. Retrieved November 4, 2016.</ref> Both of these evidences provide strong evidence for a young universe.
=== Biology and genetics ===
# Blue-eyed people are known to be only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Moreover, the number of blue-eyed people is steadily diminishing, further suggesting that humans have not been in existence long.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/world/americas/18iht-web.1018eyes.3199975.html</ref>
# "[http://creation.com/bugs-in-brine DNA in “ancient” fossils]. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old calls into question the age calculation, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years."<ref name="Age of the earth"/>
# The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,<ref>''See, e.g.'', David G. Savage, "The Long Decline in SAT Scores," Educational Leadership 290 (Jan. 1978). [http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197801_savage.pdf]</ref> music, personal letters,<ref>E.g., Civil War letters.</ref> quality of political debates,<ref>E.g., contrast the Lincoln-Douglas debates with debates today.</ref> the quality of news articles,<ref>''The Federalist'' was written for the newspaper audience in the late 1780s, but is far too intellectual for newspapers today.</ref> and many other measures. This means that if one goes back far enough, intelligence would measure at ridiculous heights, if humans were even tens of thousands of years old.
# The age of onset of [[puberty|sexual maturity]] is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.<ref>For evidence of a rapidly-changing age for sexual maturity in fish, see http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/235</ref>[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|"[http://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers Living fossils] — [[jellyfish]], graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine, and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the possibility that these species are millions and billions of years old."<ref name="Age of the earth"/>]]
# The high observed rate of [[extinctions of species]]<ref>[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/animals-face-extinction-threat-as-conservation-efforts-slow-report-says.html One in five species are at risk of extinction]</ref> and harmful [[genetic mutation]]s suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.
# "[http://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers Living fossils] — [[jellyfish]], graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real."<ref name="Age of the earth"/>
#<span id="Biology 6"></span> The age of onset balding or of graying of hair is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying ([[CNN]]'s [[Anderson Cooper]] began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);<ref name="Graying">http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-06-18/living/17299704_1_hair-taylor-hicks-american-idol</ref> many celebrities (such as [[American Idol]] winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)<ref name="Graying"/> and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)<ref>"There's a man, close-cropped gray hair, looks older than 35": Sports Illustrated's description of Cal Ripken at 35. [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1163438/index.htm#ixzz12ONbgydd] By age 50 he was bald too.</ref> increasingly experience premature graying or balding.
# The age of onset of [[cancer]] is markedly decreasing,<ref>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0</ref> suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life. "Someone born in 1990 would have twice the risk of colon cancer and four times the risk of rectal cancer than at the same age had they been born in 1950, according to researchers at the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute."<ref>http://www.click2houston.com/health/born-in-the-90s-your-colon-cancer-risk-could-be-rising_</ref>
# The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth theory true, the human population would show much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have calculated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this demonstrates that chimpanzees descended from a large initial population while humans have descended from a much smaller one, which indeed we know to have been two people.
# Frequent occurrences of numerous deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/technology&id=7884786</ref>
# The separation between salt and freshwater fish, coupled with their inability to survive in the opposing environment, shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Furthermore, the separation of land and aquatic life and a similar inability for the organisms to survive in the other environment shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Biodiversity on Earth is declining too rapidly to be consistent with a long-term (Old Earth) equilibrium, with the Living Planet Index (LPI) showing "a global decline of 27% between 1970 and 2005. The terrestrial index declined by 25%, freshwater by 29% (this index is calculated to 2003 due to the lack of data available for latter years), and marine by 28%."<ref>http://www.zsl.org/science/research-projects/lpi,1162,AR.html</ref>
# The [[Bible]] makes references to the [[dinosaurs]]. There is no explanation for this if dinosaurs supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago.<ref>http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/93-dinosaurs-and-the-bible</ref>
# Even evolutionist studies have shown (despite the dating errors) that the vast majority of species on Earth arose around the same time and that genetic boundaries exist between the various animal kinds.<ref>Multiple references:
*Hood, Marlowe (May 28, 2018). [https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution]. ''Phys.org''. Retrieved June 7, 2018.
*Ham, Ken (June 7, 2018). [https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/study-90-percent-of-species-have-recent-origin/ Study: 90% of Species Have a Recent Origin]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved June 7, 2018.
*Davis, Billy; Jordahl, Steve (May 31, 2018). [https://www.onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2018/05/31/when-your-dna-research-pokes-holes-in-darwin When your DNA research pokes holes in Darwin]. ''OneNewsNow''. Retrieved June 7, 2018.</ref>
# Evolutionist studies have found that all male humans have the same Y-[[chromosome]] while females have greater chromosomal diversity.<ref>Stanford University. "Wars and clan structure may explain a strange biological event 7,000 years ago." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 May 2018. < https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180529185356.htm >.</ref> This is in line with the Genesis account, which shows that only Noah's Y-chromosome lineage survived the flood, being passed along to his sons and beyond, while seven or eight x-chromosome lineages survived.<ref>Cater, Robert W. (May 11, 2010). [https://creation.com/noah-and-genetics Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics]. ''Creation Ministries International'. Retrieved June 16, 2018.</ref>
# The sulfurization of organic matter, once thought to take tens of thousands of years, has been found to only take hours to complete.<ref>[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180830180058.htm Faster than we thought: Sulfurization of organic material: New research is changing our understanding of the carbon cycle]. ''ScienceDaily'' (from ''Washington University in St. Louis''). August 30, 2018. Retrieved September 16, 2018.</ref>
==Early calculations==
=== Geology ===
[[File:Lord Kelvin photograph.jpg|thumb|upright|left|William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)]]
Geological counterexamples to an Old Earth include:
[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|250px|"[[Paraconformity|Paraconformities]] — where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a “flat gap”. E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the [[Grand Canyon]] (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time).".<ref name="Age of the earth"/> See: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] ]]
# Based on erosion rates, [[Niagara Falls]] is known to be less than 15,000 years old, even as admitted by [[atheist]]ic scientists who believe in an [[Old Earth]].<ref>The theory of an [[Ice Age]] to carve Niagara Falls less than 15,000 years ago is inconsistent with its shape and with much other geological evidence.</ref>
# Sedimentary rock strata covering large areas seldom contain more than one major sediment type, i.e. sandstone, claystone, or limestone. How would it have been possible for just one type of sediment to be deposited over large areas for thousands of years, followed by thousands of years of another type and so on? Obviously, the sediments were not deposited over thousands of years each, but were contained in moving waters and sorted out during major flooding. This kind of sorting has been proved by Guy Berthault's experiments and by observation of flood deposits in Colorado in 1965, flood deposits at Mount St. Helens in the 1980s and others. John Baumgardner et al showed that megatsunamis over 2 km high would have been capable of rapidly eroding undersea continental slopes and depositing it over large continental areas in weeks to months. An asteroid swarm would have been capable of causing such tsunamis by tidal action. See Genesis and Historical Geology: A Personal Perspective GUY BERTHAULT <ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j12_2/j12_2_213-217.pdf</ref> Also <ref>http://sedimentology.fr</ref> and Noah’s Flood: The Key to Correct Interpretation of Earth History <ref>https://www.socalsem.edu/noahs-flood-the-key-to-correct-interpretation-of-earth-history</ref>
# The interior of the earth is as hot as the sun—far hotter than atheists thought—and such heat would have dissipated and the radioactivity decayed if the earth were old.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22297915</ref>
# The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years;<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3693932/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/earths-magnetic-field-weakening/</ref> extrapolating backwards does not permit an Old Earth.
# [[Paraconformity|Paraconformities]] — where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a “flat gap.” E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the [[Grand Canyon]] (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time).<ref name="Age of the earth"/> See: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth].
# The frequency of large [[earthquakes]] (more than 6.99 on the Richter scale) doubles roughly every 40 years,<ref>http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/</ref> rendering long-term stability impossible. Large earthquakes have increased by more than 20% in only the last decade.<ref>http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php Meanwhile, there is a claim that the global risk of big earthquakes has not increased over the last hundred years [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Peter M. Shearer, Philip B. Stark: ''Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased''] [http://www.pnas.org PNAS], Dec 19, 2011, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1118525109</ref> "Researchers are left scratching their heads, trying to understand possible reasons for the uptick in seismic activity in Oklahoma."<ref>http://journalrecord.com/2014/06/16/stc-mining-in-ok-eqs-energy/#ixzz3BKBRvmOW</ref>
# The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed despite a short time period for erosion and stresses on them.<ref>http://www.naturalarches.org/big9.htm</ref>
# An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102290.html</ref> with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.
# The massive [[Great Lakes]] and freshwater lakes near the equator could not have existed for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume; the third largest saltwater lake, Oroumieh Lake, could completely evaporate within the next five years.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110525/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_environmental_disaster</ref>
# The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as Mono Lake and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]].
# The relative purity of underground well water, which would be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.
# The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of [[entropy]] to dissipate over a long period of time.
# Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation several times each century;<ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2010872/japan_quake_changed_earths_rotation/</ref> extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation<ref>A similar analysis may be performed for the likelihood of devastating collisions with meteors as time is extrapolated by orders of magnitude.</ref>
# The lack of erosion between rock layers.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0</ref><ref>http://www.knowthebible.net/id115.html</ref>
# Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the [[water cycle]] it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have been reached long ago where water (essential to life) became too contaminated for life to continue.
# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.
# The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago.
# The relatively recent separation of the still-moving continents from one land mass—denied for 100 years by [[atheist]]s before they accepted it—suggest a young earth or at least a relatively recent cataclysmic event.
# Fresh tracks of motion by stationary rocks are still visible in some areas, baffling Old Earth scientists for more than 60 years; Old Earth magazines refer to them as "self-moving rocks."<ref>http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/02/18/rafting-for-rocks?s_cid=rss:rafting-for-rocks</ref>
# Beaches have long been eroding far too quickly for the Old Earth theory; "between 80 and 90 percent of the sandy beaches along America’s coastlines have been eroding for decades," sometimes by as much as 50 feet per year.<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-beach-erosion</ref>
# Land is sinking into the oceans at a rate of at least 7 inches per century,<ref>http://www.app.com/article/20110319/NJNEWS/103190327/Global-warming-rising-seas-threaten-New-Jersey-expert-says</ref> which would have rendered most of the United States under water if the Earth were not young.
# The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up in the next decade.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13mead.html</ref>
# Erosion of rock is far faster than atheist geology previously thought [http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/01/scienceshot-fastest-mountain-erosion-record]. Secular science now admits that mountains don't last long, but remain strangely silent on the obvious implication. Also in the same article: extra soil created by erosion scrubs greenhouse gas CO<sub>2</sub> from atmosphere.
# Contrary to evolutionary assumptions that diamonds formed in conditions where there was no water, researchers collected diamond samples from deep within the Earth's crust and found in 2018 ice embedded in the diamonds.<ref>Gramling, Carolyn (March 8, 2018). [https://www.sciencenews.org/article/diamonds-reveal-sign-deepest-water-known-inside-earth Diamonds reveal sign of the deepest water known inside Earth]. ''ScienceNews''. Retrieved March 19, 2018.</ref> This is consistent with the biblical accounts of the creation and the global flood, including 2 Peter 3:5–6.
[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] also provides scores of anomalies, which challenge the [[Old Earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref> An accomplished author,<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
Corliss has written 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>
=== Paleontology ===
#Recent discoveries of surviving soft dinosaur tissue upset the Darwinist claim that they became extinct 65 million years ago.<ref>Armitage, M.H. and K.L. Anderson. 2013. Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraobital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus. Acta Histochemica 115:603-608.</ref><ref>Armitage, M.H. and K.L. Anderson. 2014. Light and electron microscope study of soft bone osteocytes from a Triceratops horridus supraorbitalhorn. Microscopy & Microanalysis (Hartford, CT).</ref> View Armitage's presentation of his results at the Southern California Academy of Sciences meetings in 2013 and 2014.<ref>Mark H Armitage - Report Of Soft Tissues In A Triceratops Horn (conglomeration of talks presented at the Southern California Academy of Sciences meetings in 2013 and 2014).[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqDV_MTQSxg]</ref> A number of other peer-reviewed papers found similar results.<ref>[http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-original-biological-material Documented by Bob Enyart of Real Science Radio]</ref>
#Fossils have been found, such as footprints, showing that dinosaurs and mammals lived together at the same time.<ref>Borg, Julie (February 9, 2018). [http://www.bpnews.net/50342/dinosaur-party-or-evidence-of-the-flood Dinosaur party or evidence of the flood?] ''Baptist Press''. Retrieved February 22, 2018.</ref>
=== Science & Discovery ===
# A stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades.<ref>Though there has been some progress in this timeframe, many of the "discoveries" are liberal propaganda, or are scientifically weak.</ref>
=== Biblical testimony ===
The last estimate Thomson gave, in 1897, was: "that it was more than 20 and less than 40 million year old, and probably much nearer 20 than 40".<ref>Dalrymple (1994) pp. 14, 43</ref> In 1899 and 1900, [[John Joly]] calculated the rate at which the oceans should have accumulated [[Halite|salt]] from [[erosion]] processes, and determined that the oceans were about 80 to 100 million years old.<ref name=Dal14-17/>
The Bible contains multiples pieces of evidence showing its authenticity including [[Bible history]], [[Biblical archaeology|Bible archaeology]] and [[Bible prophecy]]. Competent and honest [[Bible exegesis]] indicates the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally Should Genesis be taken literally?]</ref>
''See also:'' [http://creation.com/history-questions-and-answers How reliable is biblical chronology?]
===Overview===
== Highly recommended resources for more in-depth information and evidence ==
===Convective mantle and radioactivity===
=== Websites ===
*[https://answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis] official website
*[http://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creation Research] official website
*[https://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International] official website
===Invention of radiometric dating===
=== Books ===
*Virtually any book concerning creation and [[Christian apologetics]] published by [http://www.masterbooks.com/ MasterBooks]
*Jeanson, Nathaniel T. (2017). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/replacing-darwin/ Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9781683440758.
*Mortenson, Terry, ed. (2016). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/searching-adam/ Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man's Origin]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890519752.
*Landis, Don (2015). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/secrets-ancient-man/ Secrets of Ancient Man]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890518663.
*Hodge, Bodie (2013). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/tower-babel-book/ Tower of Babel: The Cultural History of Our Ancestors]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890517154.
*Landis, Don (2012). ''[https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/genius-ancient-man/ The Genius of Ancient Man]''. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. ISBN: 9780890516775.
*[[Walt Brown|Brown, Walt]] (2008). ''[[In the Beginning|In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood]] (8th Edition)''. Center for Scientific Creation; 8th edition (December 1, 2008). ISBN: 978-1878026095.
*[[William R. Corliss]], Anomalies in Geology: Physical, Chemical, Biological (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1989. ISBN 915554-23-2
*William R. Corliss Neglected Geological Anomalies, 1990. ISBN 915554-24-0
*William R. CorlissInner Earth: A Search for Anomalies (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1991. ISBN 915554-25-9
*William R. Corliss, Carolina Bays, Mima Mounds, Submarine Canyons (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1988. ISBN 915554-22-4
===Films===
*''[[Is Genesis History?]]'' (2017; [https://isgenesishistory.com/ website])
=== Other recommended links ===
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe] 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://www.preteristcentral.com/Debunking%20Old%20Earth%20Creationism%20&%20a%20Regional%20Flood.html Debunking the Old Earth Theory]
*[https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/millions-of-years/seven-reasons-why-we-should-not-accept-millions-of-years/ Seven Reasons Why We Should Not Accept Millions of Years] by Dr. Terry Mortenson at [[Answers in Genesis]]. Originally published on July 17, 2006.
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Young_earth_evidence Young earth evidence] on [[CreationWiki]]
== See also ==
*[[Literalist Bible chronology]]
*[[Radiometric dating]]
*[[Arguments for a recent creation]]
*[[Earth age opinions of prominent Christians - pre-1800]]
== Footnotes ==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}
{{Counterexamples}}
[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:History of Earth science]]
[[Category:Geology theories]]