How old do you believe the Earth is?

[Kulindahr]

I don't know of any credible evidence that supports the "under 10K year" figure for the age of the earth

That's why I put the word "evidence" in quotes: that for the young earth is supposedly based on the Bible. That's what I meant by saying those idiots don't even know their subject matter. It's just too bad that a bored bishop one day played with a text he didn't actually understand and added up numbers that just don't work that way.

 

[Kulindahr]

Personally, I accept that the methods we have to date the world are inaccurate to at least an extent, and that the number is off. We may never know by exactly how much in our lifetime, but I don't believe that the world is exactly 4.5 billion years old and I don't feel that the world is only 6 thousand years old, either. It could be a few hundred thousand, or a few (hundred) million for all we know.

There's no way it's even just "a few hundred thousand" -- the crystal deformation in the Himalayas is sufficient evidence to establish that. "A few (hundred) million" fails merely on the basis of sea floor spreading -- which is no longer just a theory based on the shapes of the continents; it has been observed and measured.

Take those two alone and the figure pops up over six hundred million.

 

[Kulindahr]

there's not much controvosy about Carbon dating - but this isn't very accurate - and depends on a fairly subtle effect that living organisms tend to favour using higher Carbon isotopes - and that the readioactive decay of these can determine when the organism was actually alive.

C-14 dating depends on half-life and isolation from new carbon, along with estimates (getting darned good, with Antarctic ice core data) of atmospheric carbon distribution in the past. Due to the half-life calculations, obviously the farther back you go, the greater the 'error' bar gets. For archaeologists, the figures start becoming useless for actually dating history at about 5,000 years; results can be used to put events/materials in chronological order but not pegged to specific calendar periods. By 10,000 years, they're guessing at the century.

For biologists, though, dealing with materials generally having a much higher carbon content, the method is useful back to 50,000 years. Even that number is being pushed back as greater precision in measurement is achieved; good estimates can reach back to 60,000 B.P.

For dates beyond that, there's potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, the two uranium pathways (lead, and IIRC thorium), and certainly others I don't know anything about. I don't recall the time scales those apply to.

The other evidence that has been accumalated overwhelmingly points to around a 4 billion year age for the world, There is nothing to support any other age - not 6000 years nor just a few hundred thousand years nor a few hundred million years.

The Canadian Shield dates to ~2.5 billion years, using a variety of methods. I read a while back that the Greenland portion of that formation may date to ~2.8+ billion. Just as trivia, that formation of rock is close to being round, except for Hudson's Bay sitting in the middle (the round shapes of the Bay and its sides suggest a calved comet strike, but no evidence has been found to support an impact hypothesis).

Nor is the Canadian the oldest; I forget which is, but surface rocks elsewhere have been dated to ~3.2+ billion years, using radiometric and crystal deformation (and other) methods.

Just allowing for the erosion rates on those formations, the continents themselves are at least ~3.8 billion years old.

WRT the oinkers who think the earth is only tent thousand or less years old.... I was once talking with one, who was explaining how God had put dinosaur bones into the rocks, and stacked all the layers, and on and on. I interrupted about the tenth time he said "God did....", and said, "You mean the Devil." The expression on his face was priceless -- shock, confusion, outrage. "The devil is the Father of Lies, and you're telling me someone stacked up a whole pile of lies for us. That's the Devil." I didn't go quite so far as to say he was actually worshiping Satan, or to pat him on the head; I just offered him a cold drink and went off to swim for a bit.
He actually came back later and asked how those things got there if the earth was only ten thousand years old. I just asked, "Who told you that?" "Our pastor." "Where'd he get it?" "The Bible." I shook my head and said, "No, he didn't. I've read the whole thing in Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek, and there's no such thing in there." Then I took him through the grammar of Genesis 1 and showed him that for what the text says, the earth could be a hundred billion years old -- so he wanted to know how we could know, and I took him to places in the Bible where, to paraphrase, God tells us to study and think; in other words, use science.
I think I left behind a troubled and hopefully more educated guy (and his gf, who thought me skinny-dipping was awesome, and tried to get him to join me).

In fact in this case - any religiouslly inspired idea to "Teach the Controversy" is totally spurious - there isn't any scientific controvosy about the age of the Earth - it is what it is - not what anyone wants it to be - in the same way the world isn't flat - no mater how much some people might think this is (or want this to be) the case.

The only controversy I'd teach would be a unit called "How stupid do you think people are?", followed by "Why would God lie to us?" Or maybe reverse them.

 

[Aaron]

Well, I'm 23.... so it has to be at least 24 years old.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, I'm 23.... so it has to be at least 24 years old.

Certain old philosophers would love that.....

 

[AsianDream]

In fact in this case - any religiouslly inspired idea to "Teach the Controversy" is totally spurious - there isn't any scientific controvosy about the age of the Earth - it is what it is - not what anyone wants it to be - in the same way the world isn't flat - no mater how much some people might think this is (or want this to be) the case.

The only controversy I'd teach would be a unit called "How stupid do you think people are?", followed by "Why would God lie to us?" Or maybe reverse them.

That's a very good argument -

Why would (a nice) God fake loads of evidence to make us think (beyond reasonable doubt) that the World is 4 billion years old when it's actually much younger?

Though I guess (from a "Young Earth" believers perspective) - all this evidence could have been faked by the Devil - planting Dinasour bones and sprinkling iridium to make the KT boundary layer etc.

So there is a view that the very convincing evidence for the age of the earth has been put in place by the Devil - and that God has let this stay there in order to test the "Faith" of true believers - so God isn't lying to them - but has allowed the Devils false trail of evidence to exist in order to find those that really have true Faith.

Clearly - as an Athiest - I think this a rather circular argument - but if someone believes that both God and the Devil are at work in the world - then it is only natural that God will sometimes allow the Devil to win in order to test peoples' faith.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's a very good argument -

Why would (a nice) God fake loads of evidence to make us think (beyond reasonable doubt) that the World is 4 billion years old when it's actually much younger?

Though I guess (from a "Young Earth" believers perspective) - all this evidence could have been faked by the Devil - planting Dinasour bones and sprinkling iridium to make the KT boundary layer etc.

So there is a view that the very convincing evidence for the age of the earth has been put in place by the Devil - and that God has let this stay there in order to test the "Faith" of true believers - so God isn't lying to them - but has allowed the Devils false trail of evidence to exist in order to find those that really have true Faith.

Clearly - as an Athiest - I think this a rather circular argument - but if someone believes that both God and the Devil are at work in the world - then it is only natural that God will sometimes allow the Devil to win in order to test peoples' faith.

I'd forgotten about that particular piece of idiocy.

My question is simple: where, in that chronicle in Genesis where God keeps saying that everything was "good", did Satan sneak in and mess it up without God noticing? Seriously, if God had noticed, why would He lie and keep calling it "good", and if He hadn't noticed, then what's the point in dealing with a loser?

In my eyes, people who go to such lengths are enamored of the Devil, not of God, and are magnifying his works, not God's. They have to continually ascribe to the Enemy more and more power, which is blasphemy -- the Bible says to ascribe power to God, so doing the opposite must be devil worship.

Yes, God tests people, but He doesn't play mind games (though He does play dice).

 

[nate78]

Yes, we are all welcome to our own opinions. How wonderful that it! Not everything merits an opinion, however.

The earth is 5 - 6 billion years old. Period. End of story. There are multiple experiments that can be carried out in a laboratory or in the field, that lend themselves to this fact. As a religious coworker once said to me, "Carbon dating? That's a sham! Strontium? I don't even know what that is."

You may very well believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, but you would be entirely incorrect.

I can explain to you all day about the method by which the sun produces heat, but if you firmly believe that the sun produces heat by little men inside stoking a coal fire, then ok.

But, you'd also be wrong.

There are some things we can never know for certain. We can ponder them and debate them, as many philosophers have done for thousands of years. We can debate who will make a better political candidate, or what color looks better in my living room, or whether flagpole sitting went out of fad too early. The earth issue however, is close. Not because I say so, but because the facts are overwhelmingly telling us that.

Yell at me all you want, but the age of the earth is not open for opinions. It's a fact. It's done. Move on.

Now I'm going to ride my dinosaur to church.

 

[Kulindahr]

Five to six billion?

I've never heard a figure that high -- where are you getting it? 4.8 Ga is the farthest out I've encountered.

 

[AsianDream]

Five to six billion?

I've never heard a figure that high -- where are you getting it? 4.8 Ga is the farthest out I've encountered.

Maybe this is a Typo and should have read 4 to 5 billion?

 

[Kulindahr]

As a religious coworker once said to me, "Carbon dating? That's a sham! Strontium? I don't even know what that is."

Amazingly enough, when it offers the chance to verify some archaeological discovery they think will bolster their position, carbon dating suddenly becomes respectable.

Maybe this is a Typo and should have read 4 to 5 billion?

I'll buy that.

Seriously, can you imagine the back rent we might owe if we'd missed a billion years?!

 

[AsianDream]

I'd forgotten about that particular piece of idiocy.

My question is simple: where, in that chronicle in Genesis where God keeps saying that everything was "good", did Satan sneak in and mess it up without God noticing? Seriously, if God had noticed, why would He lie and keep calling it "good", and if He hadn't noticed, then what's the point in dealing with a loser?

In my eyes, people who go to such lengths are enamored of the Devil, not of God, and are magnifying his works, not God's. They have to continually ascribe to the Enemy more and more power, which is blasphemy -- the Bible says to ascribe power to God, so doing the opposite must be devil worship.

Yes, God tests people, but He doesn't play mind games (though He does play dice).

What could be a better test of Faith than giving seemingly definite evidence for the world being about 4 billion years old - while those that have faith know God said it was only 6,000 years old?

This is seriously what a lot of people think - in fact (rather horrifyingly) if some recent polls are to believed - a large number of US Citizens

 

[Kulindahr]

What could be a better test of Faith than giving seemingly definite evidence for the world being about 4 billion years old - while those that have faith know God said it was only 6,000 years old?

This is seriously what a lot of people think - in fact (rather horrifyingly) if some recent polls are to believed - a large number of US Citizens

That would be all the ones who think the King James Version was delivered by God personally, that the Scofield Reference Bible is inspired, and that learning to think is a sin.

The same group that's led by "preachers" who despise God's Word sufficiently that they've never spent the energy of a fart of learning to actually read it, i.e. in the original tongues, and who think indigestion is a movement of the Spirit.

 

[nate78]

Sorry boys typo. 4-5 is correct.

 

[ChickenGuy]

Four months on, and my thread is still going strong!

It's one of the first threads I started after joining here.

Questions for Kulindahr:

Are there sections of the American public (those that are evangelical protestant, I'm assuming) for whom even just questioning the story of creation is a sign of the Devil's influence on them?

Do such people consider the simple thought process of asking a question in their mind, which contradicts their religious doctrine, to be the Devil making them think such things?

Is it therefore a mindset that develops from childhood? I'm all too aware that as a child, I had an interest in dinosaurs - and my parents gave me a detailed and wide-ranging illustrated book on prehistoric life, which I read thoroughly (I still have it, along with others now) - but what if my parents had given me a Bible to read instead? Would I now be a Christian?

Is a child a 'clean slate', who could be atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist - anything - depending on what is taught to the child? Is the level of fervency dependent on the manner in which the subject is taught?

Or does it have more to do with a person's life experiences outside of their education?

Or is a 'god gene' present at birth, which pre-determines the level of belief someone will have?

Interested to get your thoughts on this - thanks.

 

[nate78]

Four months on, and my thread is still going strong!

It's one of the first threads I started after joining here.

Questions for Kulindahr:

Are there sections of the American public (those that are evangelical protestant, I'm assuming) for whom even just questioning the story of creation is a sign of the Devil's influence on them?

Do such people consider the simple thought process of asking a question in their mind, which contradicts their religious doctrine, to be the Devil making them think such things?

Is it therefore a mindset that develops from childhood? I'm all too aware that as a child, I had an interest in dinosaurs - and my parents gave me a detailed and wide-ranging illustrated book on prehistoric life, which I read thoroughly (I still have it, along with others now) - but what if my parents had given me a Bible to read instead? Would I now be a Christian?

Is a child a 'clean slate', who could be atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist - anything - depending on what is taught to the child? Is the level of fervency dependent on the manner in which the subject is taught?

Or does it have more to do with a person's life experiences outside of their education?

Or is a 'god gene' present at birth, which pre-determines the level of belief someone will have?

Interested to get your thoughts on this - thanks.

Really very fascinating and thought provoking questions, Chicken Guy. I too, am interested in anyone else's input on the matter.

 

[AsianDream]

Four months on, and my thread is still going strong!

It's one of the first threads I started after joining here.

Questions for Kulindahr:

Are there sections of the American public (those that are evangelical protestant, I'm assuming) for whom even just questioning the story of creation is a sign of the Devil's influence on them?

Do such people consider the simple thought process of asking a question in their mind, which contradicts their religious doctrine, to be the Devil making them think such things?

Is it therefore a mindset that develops from childhood? I'm all too aware that as a child, I had an interest in dinosaurs - and my parents gave me a detailed and wide-ranging illustrated book on prehistoric life, which I read thoroughly (I still have it, along with others now) - but what if my parents had given me a Bible to read instead? Would I now be a Christian?

Is a child a 'clean slate', who could be atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist - anything - depending on what is taught to the child? Is the level of fervency dependent on the manner in which the subject is taught?

Or does it have more to do with a person's life experiences outside of their education?

Or is a 'god gene' present at birth, which pre-determines the level of belief someone will have?

Interested to get your thoughts on this - thanks.

Really very fascinating and thought provoking questions, Chicken Guy. I too, am interested in anyone else's input on the matter.

I think the concept of Children as a "Blank Slate" is to some extent true. The vast majority of people retain as adults the ideas they were brought up with as a child - but also a significant minoirty do also challenge these.

The geographic concentration of religions is one piece of evidence that points to these being determined by the culture people were raised in.

If people arrived at their beliefs only by informed independant rational choice - it would be very strange if almost all those in the Middle East all happened to chose the Muslim faith?

Independantly of wether their beliefs are true or not - this would seem to indicate that these are transmitted based on cultural and societal conformity. The only other slight statistical correlation with peoples "choice" of religion is in the intensity of sunlight where they live (but I think this is a statistical artifact)

However - I'm at risk of drifting seriously "off-topic"

For the actual age of the Earth - as for any other scientific fact - what people believe is totally irrelevant - the Age of the Earth is what it is - not what we want it to be.

This does discount the idea that the Devil has planted all the evidence showing a 4 to 5 billion year age - and God has left this in place in order to challenge the faith of people.

One reason why some Religious variants support the "Young Earth" idea is that this would obviously disprove Evolution - which requires unimaginablly long periods of time (billions of years) to lead to life on Earth as it is today.

 

[TX-Beau]

One reason why some Religious variants support the "Young Earth" idea is that this would obviously disprove Evolution - which requires unimaginablly long periods of time (billions of years) to lead to life on Earth as it is today.

You’re over thinking it. Both of these things are the same in that the people who espouse them do so for a societal reason, not a logical one. They are – and I’ve said it before, banner beliefs. Litmus tests. The more opposition, the more credit these people give themselves for standing fast in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The fact that there is so much evidence and opposition to the contrary just makes their banner beliefs that much more intractable.

The point is to stick to these kinds of irrationalities in the face of all evidence and opposition to the contrary, the better the opposition, the greater the self congratulation for sticking to faith, and the more credit they get in their own communities.

These people don’t care about evidence, they don’t care about logic, they don’t care if their arguments make sense, hang together, or even if they are mutually contradictory, frankly I suspect they don’t really care about the actual issues themselves, beyond the way they exploit them, they just care that there’s opposition, opposition they can tell themselves they’re fighting for god, that they can stand up to and therefore, validate that they are the faithful who will stick to the righteous path against all odds. It’s a variant of the martyr complex.

These beliefs are “banner beliefs,” they’re icons that march at the head of their army, they can’t be questioned, they can’t be refuted, and the more opposition the rest of us throw up, only serves to cement their icons.

If no one ever cared, or ever listened to creationists, there were no lawsuits, no screaming atheists, no scientists telling them the evidence does not support creationism, no media, no attention, they’d be following another banner. Something else designed to guarantee them enough controversy to crucify themselves with.

They cannot tell themselves they're fighting for god unless they provoke a reaction, and there's no easier way to do that than to champion an untenable, but ostensibly biblical position, then try and force in on the rest of us.

And THAT, is the point of it all. So forget, trying to argue any kind of logic with this, they don't care about logic, they only want the confrontation. Without that, there's no payoff.

There's no point in trying to understand these people's argument in terms of one's own logic, they're using an entirely different measure altogether.

 

[AsianDream]

You’re over thinking it. Both of these things are the same in that the people who espouse them do so for a societal reason, not a logical one. They are – and I’ve said it before, banner beliefs. Litmus tests. The more opposition, the more credit these people give themselves for standing fast in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The fact that there is so much evidence and opposition to the contrary just makes their banner beliefs that much more intractable.

The point is to stick to these kinds of irrationalities in the face of all evidence and opposition to the contrary, the better the opposition, the greater the self congratulation for sticking to faith, and the more credit they get in their own communities.

These people don’t care about evidence, they don’t care about logic, they don’t care if their arguments make sense, hang together, or even if they are mutually contradictory, frankly I suspect they don’t really care about the actual issues themselves, beyond the way they exploit them, they just care that there’s opposition, opposition they can tell themselves they’re fighting for god, that they can stand up to and therefore, validate that they are the faithful who will stick to the righteous path against all odds. It’s a variant of the martyr complex.

These beliefs are “banner beliefs,” they’re icons that march at the head of their army, they can’t be questioned, they can’t be refuted, and the more opposition the rest of us throw up, only serves to cement their icons.

If no one ever cared, or ever listened to creationists, there were no lawsuits, no screaming atheists, no scientists telling them the evidence does not support creationism, no media, no attention, they’d be following another banner. Something else designed to guarantee them enough controversy to crucify themselves with.

They cannot tell themselves they're fighting for god unless they provoke a reaction, and there's no easier way to do that than to champion an untenable, but ostensibly biblical position, then try and force in on the rest of us.

And THAT, is the point of it all. So forget, trying to argue any kind of logic with this, they don't care about logic, they only want the confrontation. Without that, there's no payoff.

There's no point in trying to understand these people's argument in terms of one's own logic, they're using an entirely different measure altogether.

I hope you've got maybe too bleak a view of humanity - but also I guess this must be true for some people.

Are there really many people that are totally impervious to reason? - don’t care about evidence - don’t care about logic - don’t care if their arguments make sense / hang together / or are mutually contradictory?

I guess I'm mostly on this site because of my interest in sex - but I'm also interested in philosophy.

I've got a huge personal antipathy towards religion - but I know this is just a personal prejudice and what I chose to think - not what is necessarily true.

Also I think that a rational scientific approach is the only way to arrive at the truth.

For me - This means deliberately trying to prove that my ideas are wrong - and still see if these can stand up to challenge by others with different ideas.

In terms of a structured discussion - my remarks are way "off-topic" for this particular thread.

Though I'd come back to my previous point - that how old I or anyone else believes the Earth to be is irrelevant - the age of the Earth is what it is

 

[Kulindahr]

Questions for Kulindahr:

Are there sections of the American public (those that are evangelical protestant, I'm assuming) for whom even just questioning the story of creation is a sign of the Devil's influence on them?

Absolutely. Most of them would consider raising the issue that Genesis 1 is not in a literary genre that was meant to be read 'literally' in the first place to be on the same level.

Do such people consider the simple thought process of asking a question in their mind, which contradicts their religious doctrine, to be the Devil making them think such things?

Yep -- or their own weakness.

Is it therefore a mindset that develops from childhood? I'm all too aware that as a child, I had an interest in dinosaurs - and my parents gave me a detailed and wide-ranging illustrated book on prehistoric life, which I read thoroughly (I still have it, along with others now) - but what if my parents had given me a Bible to read instead? Would I now be a Christian?

It's partly a mindset that develops from childhood. I've seen people raised that way turn Roman Catholic, or go 'mainline' Protestant, or dis the church altogether, too, so it isn't an absolute.

Is a child a 'clean slate', who could be atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist - anything - depending on what is taught to the child? Is the level of fervency dependent on the manner in which the subject is taught?

Or does it have more to do with a person's life experiences outside of their education?

Or is a 'god gene' present at birth, which pre-determines the level of belief someone will have?

Most children will soak up what their parents feed them, with little question. I was raised with a good degree of skepticism, and I'm still strongly skeptical of anything that "everybody is doing" or "everybody believes".

Personally I think that fervency depends more on a person's own inside issues than on the manner in which something is taught -- although that manner may have an impact on those personal issues.

Life experiences outside of education make a difference. To a certain point, though, two things determine how life experience is interpreted: the desire to please one's parents, and the level of comfort/prosperity at home. The most fervent, unthinking 'evangelicals' I've ever known were offspring of affluent parents who unwittingly passed on a concept Jesus took pains to condemn: that if a person is prosperous, God must favor him.

If there's anything genetic, I'd have to call it a "blinders gene", that inclines people to believe contrary to evidence, and to think they can propound views regardless of expertise. That's something shared by both Pat Robertson and Richard Dawkins, who are great at pretending to be experts where they aren't.