Age of Earth

[Lyndon]

Get real, we've only been studying radioactive decay patterns for less than 100 years, the proposition that radioactive decay patterns have occurred at exactly the same rate for billions of years is nothing more than a theory, with no potential evidence to back it up.

 

[Valjean]

... nothing more than a theory,

Oh dear, here we go...

 

[Curious George]

Get real, we've only been studying radioactive decay patterns for less than 100 years, the proposition that radioactive decay patterns have occurred at exactly the same rate for billions of years is nothing more than a theory, with no potential evidence to back it up.

No there is much evidence to back it up. It is the study of how an element breaks down. Any possible variation would necessarily entail an outside influence which is what Nietzsche was pointing out.

However, that doesn't mean their was no outside influence. But as we get more findings there is less and less of a chance (impossible to my knowledge) that some string of events occurred in such a manner as to skew all the results equally.

 

[Nietzsche]

Get real, we've only been studying radioactive decay patterns for less than 100 years, the proposition that radioactive decay patterns have occurred at exactly the same rate for billions of years is nothing more than a theory, with no potential evidence to back it up.

Right, and there really were faeries, unicorns and hippogriffs until the invention of the camera.

 

[Riverwolf]

Get real, we've only been studying radioactive decay patterns for less than 100 years, the proposition that radioactive decay patterns have occurred at exactly the same rate for billions of years is nothing more than a theory, with no potential evidence to back it up.

We don't need to be around for very long to observe consistent patterns that appear to not have any variation without external influences. If you observe a ball on a flat plane for an hour, notice that in that time it rolled 2 kilometers without any variation in its speed, and you see before you the flat plane extending as far as you can see in both directions with little to no real variance, it takes simple algebra to predict exactly where the ball was 4 billion years ago, and exactly where it will be 4 billion years from now. While there is always room for some doubt, there's simply no information to suggest the ball would be anywhere except where you predicted.

While I'm not educated on the intricacies of using radioactive decay for study, I would guess that getting the ~4.6 billion years out of the century of study involves the same manner of deduction.

 

[David M]

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

It hasn't changed in my lifetime, its just reduced its possible error range. When we say 4.54 billion years there is always the unspoken inclusion of the +/- 1% that is approximately the current range of uncertainty. Its been 4 and a half billion years plus or minus a bit for as long as I can remember.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Until better evidence is available it would be safe to stick with approximately 4.54 billion years. No one can conceptualise those vast time scales anyway.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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?

Not all opinions are created equal and throwing around the term 'hypothesis' is worthless at best. For the most part the set of views is primarily populated by a highly informed and massively reviewed scientific consensus on the one hand and nonsense on the other.

 

[Marisa]

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

It depends on how reasonable you want your religion to appear, don't you think? Your other comment makes me wonder if you actually understand that science doesn't "waver" in the sense you're alluding to. It seeks to be as accurate as possible, and as our understanding improves and we gain more knowledge, accuracy improves. This is not a reason to distrust science, it's why you can know that science's only goal is in understanding the world in which we all live. A hypothesis that cannot withstand attempts at falsification is disproven.

 

[jonathan180iq]

There are so many different views on how old the earth is

No there aren't. This is a false premise.

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?

Science

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

When a number includes 9 zeroes, a change of even .5% will produce a huge number...
And because of the nature of Science, when new data comes in, we want to use the most accurate information in our calculations.

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

Yes, it does.
When religions boldly make claims about the History of the world, or even of space and time, and those claims are shown quite substantially to be absolute fabrications, it's a pretty big deal.

 

[elijoe_15]

No there aren't. This is a false premise..

No it's not.They may not be true but there are old earth vs new earth beliefs and then in that are a wide range of years.

 

[jeager106]

One thing I'm sure of concerning the age of the planet.
It AIN'T only 6,000 years old.

 

[jonathan180iq]

No it's not.They may not be true but there are old earth vs new earth beliefs and then in that are a wide range of years.

You don't ask questions about mathematics from witch doctors, do you? Do the mathematical beliefs of witch doctors factor in any way to your understanding of acceptance of math?
Of course not...

So is there really a debate about the age of the Earth just because a bunch of pious people (witch doctors) wish it aligned more with their mythology?

 

[leibowde84]

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

Good question. I cannot fathom why it would matter at all. I guess there are some who would like to use the Bible as a chronology, but that doesn't seem to be it's intended use. The authors of the Bible had a far more primitive understanding of the physical world, which cannot be ignored.

 

[Iti oj]

You don't ask questions about mathematics from witch doctors, do you? Do the mathematical beliefs of witch doctors factor in any way to your understanding of acceptance of math?
Of course not...

So is there really a debate about the age of the Earth just because a bunch of pious people (witch doctors) wish it aligned more with their mythology?

have you heard of sacred geometry

 

[jonathan180iq]

have you heard of sacred geometry

I'm reading about as I type this.
Why?

 

[leibowde84]

No it's not.They may not be true but there are old earth vs new earth beliefs and then in that are a wide range of years.

The "new earth" theory is unsubstantiated at best. I'm not sure whether it is worth consideration, as it is not supported by the available evidence. In other words, the two view you mention are not on the same level. One is based on evidence, and one is not. Always trust the evidence rather than confirmation bias.

 

[rusra02]

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?

The Bible is silent regarding the age of the earth. So I accept the current scientific estimates, always with a degree of caution.

 

[elijoe_15]

One is based on evidence, and one is not. Always trust the evidence rather than confirmation bias.

I think this right here needs to be examined by all in their personal belief system

 

[Iti oj]

I'm reading about as I type this.
Why?

it was just the first thought i had to your post. people listening to spiritual leaders abut math.