Topic: How old is the Earth? (Read 2333 times)

TheAtheistHeratic · « **on:** October 05, 2005, 03:09:03 PM »

I'm interested how old the people at this forum think the Earth is. So, tell me and later on we can debate it.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #1 on:** October 16, 2005, 10:47:44 PM »

What do you think? Maybe, that would be a start?

Ragnar · « **Reply #2 on:** October 16, 2005, 11:30:50 PM »

I'll provide some bait

Johnny (and possibly Tony and geegee, not sure) think the earth is no older than 10,000 years.

The rest of us have at the least a cursory understanding of geology, astronomy, biology, physics, and chemistry; and based on the evidence believe the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, give or take half a billion.

The Sasquatch · « **Reply #3 on:** October 17, 2005, 02:15:34 PM »

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #4 on:** October 17, 2005, 03:05:42 PM »

I personally think the Earth fist started to be a sizable object 5 billion years ago.

Heretic · « **Reply #5 on:** October 18, 2005, 08:17:30 AM »

Heretic · « **Reply #6 on:** October 18, 2005, 08:17:41 AM »

I'm with Sasquatch. I'll guess 42. 8)

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #7 on:** October 18, 2005, 03:06:12 PM »

42 what? 42 trillion years? 42 seconds?

cimics · « **Reply #8 on:** October 18, 2005, 03:16:31 PM »

You need to read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #9 on:** October 18, 2005, 03:24:42 PM »

Sorry i don't like books if i've seen the movie first. Just like I don't like movies if I've read the book first. I've seen both the miniseries and the movie though.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #10 on:** October 19, 2005, 09:57:39 PM »

Hmmm...well, (laughing), IF no one knows for sure...then I don't either. lol.

BUT, I willing to go against the belief that it is only a few thousands of years old (the standard that most christians adhere to according to the study of a certian person) which means that the earth is only about 10,000, or less, years YOUNG. To me, it makes no logical sense. Evidence seems to point that the earth is much older. But, wait, this does not mean the bible description is wrong. If you think the bible description is wrong, then you would be erronously concluding a false accusation too. But this would just be my POV which could also be wrong. Tell me first...were you there in the beginning? Begging the questing...so we must not jump to quick of a conclusion either way. One thing for sure...ALL is God's creation. :D

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #11 on:** October 24, 2005, 03:22:15 PM »

From your point of view.

Harry_is_always_right · « **Reply #12 on:** October 29, 2005, 09:38:42 PM »

I think this is a huge flaw in the bible's credibilty, and i've never really heard a good rebuttal.

geegee, you say that it's your opinion that the bible is not wrong in saying that the earth was made 10, 000 years ago, the age generally accepted that the bible dates the earth. Begs the question, why? On what grounds? If you don't say why your contribution is a bit of a dead end.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2005, 07:55:06 AM »

How about this for a very simple solution: As the 'Bible' is an anthology of some 66 books, each capable of being taken on its own terms, each external to the other with few exceptions, why not just eliminate Genesis, or as is more often done, Gen. 1-11?

1 down, 65 to go, right? I understand the argument that something 'undermines the Bible' and I even agree with it to a large extent. But if we are going to be digging into these issues as deep as we are going, we have to take the 'Bible' for what it really is, rather than how it has become perceived in common usage. And at the very least, it is an anthology of 66 books, written over several thousand years, by dozens of different authors, for different purposes, in different styles, in different genres.

Copernicus · « **Reply #14 on:** October 30, 2005, 10:37:04 AM »

Let's not forget that the original position on the age of the Earth was established by Archbishop James Ussher in his "Annals of the Old Testament", which was published in 1650. He set the date at October 23, 4004 BC, which would now make it almost 6,010 years old. Ussher was widely respected for his scholarship, and his date became widely accepted in English-speaking christendom. I don't know whether sntjohnny subscribes to that date, but Ussher's work is still influential among young-earth creationists.

The opposing view--that the earth was indeterminately old--came to be established by Scottish geologist James Hutton, who first presented his theory before the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1785. (Stephen Baxter has recently published a biography of Hutton, which I am now reading.) Hutton was a deeply religious man, but his study of sedimentary rock led him to believe that Ussher was completely mistaken. Interestingly, Hutton served as a precursor to Darwin, and he even came up with the principle of natural selection:

Quote from: James Hutton

"...if an organised body is not in the situation and circumstances best adapted to its sustenance and propagation, then, in conceiving an indefinite variety among the individuals of that species, we must be assured, that, on the one hand, those which depart most from the best adapted constitution, will be the most liable to perish, while, on the other hand, those organised bodies, which most approach to the best constitution for the present circumstances, will be best adapted to continue, in preserving themselves and multiplying the individuals of their race."

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** October 30, 2005, 11:11:01 AM »

I'm pretty sure it was Lyell that actually established that. Not to discredit Hutton or anything, but I'm pretty sure it remained pretty open until Lyell codified the opposite POV.

Realist · « **Reply #16 on:** October 30, 2005, 11:58:55 AM »

The earth is 4.5-5 billion years old, give or take a few millenia. The universe is estimated at 11-14 billion years old.
Earths creation and it's age according to strictly biblical references is complete fantasy.

Copernicus · « **Reply #17 on:** October 30, 2005, 12:45:45 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

I'm pretty sure it was Lyell that actually established that. Not to discredit Hutton or anything, but I'm pretty sure it remained pretty open until Lyell codified the opposite POV.

From what I have read, it was Lyell's codification of Hutton's work that Darwin read and was influenced by, as I understand it. However, I'm not done with Baxter's biography, which will have more to say on the subject. Hutton was really one of the founders of modern geology.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #18 on:** November 02, 2005, 04:11:12 PM »

Interesting

dark territory · « **Reply #19 on:** November 03, 2005, 12:32:07 AM »

It is thought that the Sun is about 5 billion years old, and is about half way through its main sequence evolution, during which nuclear fusion reactions in its core fuse hydrogen into helium. In about 5 billion years time the Sun will become a planetary nebula.

Does the protostar phase count in the age on this pole? If so then I could argue the earth older then 5 billion years. Or what the earth is made of any way.

Author Topic: How old is the Earth? (Read 2333 times)