Age of Earth

[elijoe_15]

There are so many different views on how old the earth is,so regardless of how it came about,why do you think the earth is the age that it is and how do you know that your belief is accurate,or is it all just a hypothesis?

 

[Riverwolf]

The scientific consensus has never once contradicted my own personal observations, at least in terms of the physical world. So I trust its current estimation of 4.6 billion years.

 

[jojom]

Last I looked, according to science Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. Any other views are most likely uneducated guesses, children's ideas, or religious declarations. In as much as guesses, youthful ideas, and theological claims aren't worth bothering with, I stick with educated estimations. As for accuracy, again, I trust science over the others.

 

[elijoe_15]

The scientific consensus has never once contradicted my own personal observations, at least in terms of the physical world. So I trust its current estimation of 4.6 billion years.

But the estimation changes so much how can you just keep agreeing with it?

 

[Bunyip]

There are so many different views on how old the earth is,so regardless of how it came about,why do you think the earth is the age that it is and how do you know that your belief is accurate,or is it all just a hypothesis?

Well there are nineteen or so different vectors that lead to the current dating of 4.54 billion years accurate to within about 1 percent. Scientific dating works by comparing the results of as many different vectors as possible.

 

[Valjean]

There is a single scientific consensus, based on ongoing collection, analysis and testing of evidence.
There are numerous other opinions based on folklore, tradition, religion, &c, without benefit of evidence or critical analysis.

Personally, I feel more confident in the former.

 

[elijoe_15]

There are so many different views on how old the earth is,so regardless of how it came about,why do you think the earth is the age that it is and how do you know that your belief is accurate,or is it all just a hypothesis?

Another question.Does the age of the earth really matter as far as religion is concerned?

 

[jojom]

Another question.Does the age of the earth really matter as far as religion is concerned?

Not to scientists. Religions can do whatever they want with the scientific date, accept it or ignore it.

 

[Bunyip]

But the estimation changes so much how can you just keep agreeing with it?

Because we learn stuff. It is a best guess, based on a vast body of evidence. Evidence gained from technologies that have changed everything we once thought we knew.

 

[Valjean]

But the estimation changes so much how can you just keep agreeing with it?

I'm not sure what you mean by "changes so much." Could you expand on this a little, give some examples?

Science constantly seeks new evidence, constantly tests and compares evidence. Attempted falsification of theorums, replication of results and peer review are part of the scientific method. There is none of this in folklore or religion. This is why a theory is considered more robust than a doctrine.

Yes, scientific consensus changes -- under constant accumulation and refinement of evidence. Any changes are driven by new evidence, analysis and test results. They generally consist of refinements of an accepted theory rather than completely new theories. In any case, whatever the current consensus is is based on the weight of evidence, not speculation, tradition or 'commonsense.'

Look at successive editions of a scientific text. You'll likely find changes in each edition and often an invitation for readers to submit criticism and point out errors to the authors. You'll find none of this in religious texts. One is a posteriori, the other a priori.
Science is a growing body of knowledge and invites new insights.

 

[Lyndon]

You guys actually believe the age of the earth has been determined to 1% accuracy, not even real scientists believe that, I'd say 4.5 billion + or - 1 billion might be more accurate!!

 

[jojom]

You guys actually believe the age of the earth has been determined to 1% accuracy, not even real scientists believe that,

And we're supposed to believe you know what real scientists believe? Hardly.

I'd say 4.5 billion + or - 1 billion might be more accurate!!

Might be, but it isn't.

 

[Riverwolf]

But the estimation changes so much how can you just keep agreeing with it?

Is there something wrong with it potentially changing, and me changing to keep up?

The sciences are ALWAYS tentative to a degree.

 

[Riverwolf]

Another question.Does the age of the earth really matter as far as religion is concerned?

Not particularly, no. Religion is largely a matter of culture, not the physical world.

 

[Nietzsche]

But the estimation changes so much how can you just keep agreeing with it?

You guys actually believe the age of the earth has been determined to 1% accuracy, not even real scientists believe that, I'd say 4.5 billion + or - 1 billion might be more accurate!!

+ or - 1 Billion years is beyond comprehension to us in regards to size. But in regards to the age of...everything? A Billion years one way or another is utterly meaningless at that scale. Stop using our pathetically short lifespans as a yardstick.

 

[Lyndon]

All the age of the earth theories are based on the concept that the radioactive decay of this substance or that decayed at exactly the same rate 4.5 billion years ago as it does today. We really have no way of proving that these decays are completely constant, that's why I say + or - 1 billion years, not + or - 1%.

 

[Valjean]

You guys actually believe the age of the earth has been determined to 1% accuracy, not even real scientists believe that, I'd say 4.5 billion + or - 1 billion might be more accurate!!

Not "determined." This is just the best estimate, based on current data. Modification is assumed, as more data are collected and analysed.

 

[jojom]

All the age of the earth theories are based on the concept that the radioactive decay of this substance or that decayed at exactly the same rate 4.5 billion years ago as it does today. We really have no way of proving that these decays are completely constant, that's why I say + or - 1 billion years, not + or - 1%.

If you don't care to find out why science is satisfied with its conclusion, and instead prefer your own uneducated notion then have it your way.



.

 

[Curious George]

+ or - 1 Billion years is beyond comprehension to us in regards to size. But in regards to the age of...everything? A Billion years one way or another is utterly meaningless at that scale. Stop using our pathetically short lifespans as a yardstick.

Lol, funny but entertain the suggestion. He is saying we know it is older than 3.5 billion years and less than 5.5 billion years. If new evidence, that proved with 100% certainty, came out tomorrow stating a number in between these years we would be a little surprised if it was toward the low end, but not really that surprised.

I agree that science has narrowed it down much but I don't know that many people can imagine the +/- 50 million years in a way that is conceptually that different from a billion years.

So, to him, and I believe most others, this estimate makes sense. But, what this certainly admits is that the earth is unequivocally much, much older than any yec would believe. And certainly old enough for evolution to occur. The only thing this really changes is say the cooling time, and the time for organic compounds to form.

While I certainly don't think the +/- 1billion number is valid, it is at least a start.

 

[Nietzsche]

All the age of the earth theories are based on the concept that the radioactive decay of this substance or that decayed at exactly the same rate 4.5 billion years ago as it does today. We really have no way of proving that these decays are completely constant, that's why I say + or - 1 billion years, not + or - 1%.

Show me an example of anything that just randomly changes its base properties without any outside influence and your idea might have merit.