It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
mystikmind2000: Correction - its based on our current understanding of the laws of physics.

Fact - With every age in the past, our understanding of the laws of physics has changed. (obviously allot of stuff remains true as well)

So why would we be so arrogant to think it wont continue to change in the future?

I would pretty confidently bet my life that in the future they will learn more and change the estimated age of things what they are saying today, i guarantee it.... here it is in writing, come back in 10/20 years and congratulate me!
Yes, but with the passage of time, our understanding gets more and more refined. We don't completely wipe the slate clean and start from scratch. We build upon what has gone before. The age of things is not going to change by orders of magnitude. You can come back and quote me on that as well.
avatar
mystikmind2000: Correction - its based on our current understanding of the laws of physics.

Fact - With every age in the past, our understanding of the laws of physics has changed. (obviously allot of stuff remains true as well)

So why would we be so arrogant to think it wont continue to change in the future?

I would pretty confidently bet my life that in the future they will learn more and change the estimated age of things what they are saying today, i guarantee it.... here it is in writing, come back in 10/20 years and congratulate me!
avatar
GR00T: Yes, but with the passage of time, our understanding gets more and more refined. We don't completely wipe the slate clean and start from scratch. We build upon what has gone before. The age of things is not going to change by orders of magnitude. You can come back and quote me on that as well.
Good point, definitely a good point.... so if they the Earth is 4 billion years old today, i would expect it to change to 2 billion or 5 billion, but not 20 billion!

Sometimes there are quite dramatic discoveries that do allot of 'slate clearing', i look forward to future such events, that will be exciting!
low rated
avatar
GR00T: Yes, but with the passage of time, our understanding gets more and more refined. We don't completely wipe the slate clean and start from scratch. We build upon what has gone before. The age of things is not going to change by orders of magnitude. You can come back and quote me on that as well.
avatar
mystikmind2000: Good point, definitely a good point.... so if they the Earth is 4 billion years old today, i would expect it to change to 2 billion or 5 billion, but not 20 billion!

Sometimes there are quite dramatic discoveries that do allot of 'slate clearing', i look forward to future such events, that will be exciting!
Actually, Lord Kelvin calculated that the age of the earth to be about 100 million years, and later reduced his estimate to 20 milion. This time was too short to explain geology and evolution, but too long for overly religions folks. However, Kelvin was well respected in the scientific community, so his age estimate became generally accepted. In fact, Darwin removed his age estimate (300 million years for some rock to erode) from later editions of his Origin of Species.

Note that this all happened before radioactivity had been discovered, so Kelvin's estimate did not take that into account.
avatar
Bookwyrm627: You're asking how an omnipotent God that could create reality in one configuration would be unable to create it in some other configuration? ;)
Am i asking that? *looks behind if anyone standing behind me you could be talking too*

My point is that God, if he wanted too, he could have made the Earth 6000 years ago and then set everything up to look as though it had been going much longer. You know, if your God then you can do anything.

The real question is why would God do that? God is presumably everlasting, so he doesn't need the Earth to be 6000 years old, if the earth is 4 billion years old what is that to God? nothing.
avatar
mystikmind2000: Good point, definitely a good point.... so if they the Earth is 4 billion years old today, i would expect it to change to 2 billion or 5 billion, but not 20 billion!

Sometimes there are quite dramatic discoveries that do allot of 'slate clearing', i look forward to future such events, that will be exciting!
avatar
dtgreene: Actually, Lord Kelvin calculated that the age of the earth to be about 100 million years, and later reduced his estimate to 20 milion. This time was too short to explain geology and evolution, but too long for overly religions folks. However, Kelvin was well respected in the scientific community, so his age estimate became generally accepted. In fact, Darwin removed his age estimate (300 million years for some rock to erode) from later editions of his Origin of Species.

Note that this all happened before radioactivity had been discovered, so Kelvin's estimate did not take that into account.
I could believe 100 million in terms of the existence of life. is that what he meant?

But at what point do you start to calculate the age of the Earth? From the moment the first two atoms joined together or when its half the size it is now? presumably the Earth is still growing even today if only by very tiny amount?

Edit - Darwins 300 million based on erosion. Crap. You cannot use erosion to estimate the age of anything because of climate change. Plus you cannot rule out any periods of time of foliage coverage in the past which halts erosion.
Post edited March 24, 2017 by mystikmind2000
I trust me science, but when it really comes down to it, common sense.

If it comes to what I VALUE... common sense. I don't care what your "science" says, if you have common sense, you're good in my books.

and that, my friends, is how you determine a friend from an acquaintance.
low rated
avatar
dtgreene: Actually, Lord Kelvin calculated that the age of the earth to be about 100 million years, and later reduced his estimate to 20 milion. This time was too short to explain geology and evolution, but too long for overly religions folks. However, Kelvin was well respected in the scientific community, so his age estimate became generally accepted. In fact, Darwin removed his age estimate (300 million years for some rock to erode) from later editions of his Origin of Species.

Note that this all happened before radioactivity had been discovered, so Kelvin's estimate did not take that into account.
avatar
mystikmind2000: I could believe 100 million in terms of the existence of life. is that what he meant?

But at what point do you start to calculate the age of the Earth? From the moment the first two atoms joined together or when its half the size it is now? presumably the Earth is still growing even today if only by very tiny amount?

Edit - Darwins 300 million based on erosion. Crap. You cannot use erosion to estimate the age of anything because of climate change. Plus you cannot rule out any periods of time of foliage coverage in the past which halts erosion.
Actually, Lord Kelvin's calculation was based only on the dissipation of heat, the idea being that, without an internal source of energy, the earth would have to cool over time. By running time backwards, an age can be calculated. (Note that, as I said, Kelvin's calculation was wrong because it didn't take into account radiation, which was not known about at the time.)

Anyway, I found the text for Darwin's Origin of Species 1st Edition online at
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1228/1228-h/1228-h.htm

Here is the relevant section:

I am tempted to give one other case, the well-known one of the denudation of the Weald. Though it must be admitted that the denudation of the Weald has been a mere trifle, in comparison with that which has removed masses of our palaeozoic strata, in parts ten thousand feet in thickness, as shown in Professor Ramsay's masterly memoir on this subject. Yet it is an admirable lesson to stand on the North Downs and to look at the distant South Downs; for, remembering that at no great distance to the west the northern and southern escarpments meet and close, one can safely picture to oneself the great dome of rocks which must have covered up the Weald within so limited a period as since the latter part of the Chalk formation. The distance from the northern to the southern Downs is about 22 miles, and the thickness of the several formations is on an average about 1100 feet, as I am informed by Professor Ramsay. But if, as some geologists suppose, a range of older rocks underlies the Weald, on the flanks of which the overlying sedimentary deposits might have accumulated in thinner masses than elsewhere, the above estimate would be erroneous; but this source of doubt probably would not greatly affect the estimate as applied to the western extremity of the district. If, then, we knew the rate at which the sea commonly wears away a line of cliff of any given height, we could measure the time requisite to have denuded the Weald. This, of course, cannot be done; but we may, in order to form some crude notion on the subject, assume that the sea would eat into cliffs 500 feet in height at the rate of one inch in a century. This will at first appear much too small an allowance; but it is the same as if we were to assume a cliff one yard in height to be eaten back along a whole line of coast at the rate of one yard in nearly every twenty-two years. I doubt whether any rock, even as soft as chalk, would yield at this rate excepting on the most exposed coasts; though no doubt the degradation of a lofty cliff would be more rapid from the breakage of the fallen fragments. On the other hand, I do not believe that any line of coast, ten or twenty miles in length, ever suffers degradation at the same time along its whole indented length; and we must remember that almost all strata contain harder layers or nodules, which from long resisting attrition form a breakwater at the base. Hence, under ordinary circumstances, I conclude that for a cliff 500 feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole length would be an ample allowance. At this rate, on the above data, the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years; or say three hundred million years.
Edit: Could somebody please kindly tell why this post, which I put a lot of effort into writing, has been "low rated"?
Post edited March 24, 2017 by dtgreene
avatar
mystikmind2000: I could believe 100 million in terms of the existence of life. is that what he meant?

But at what point do you start to calculate the age of the Earth? From the moment the first two atoms joined together or when its half the size it is now? presumably the Earth is still growing even today if only by very tiny amount?

Edit - Darwins 300 million based on erosion. Crap. You cannot use erosion to estimate the age of anything because of climate change. Plus you cannot rule out any periods of time of foliage coverage in the past which halts erosion.
avatar
dtgreene: Actually, Lord Kelvin's calculation was based only on the dissipation of heat, the idea being that, without an internal source of energy, the earth would have to cool over time. By running time backwards, an age can be calculated. (Note that, as I said, Kelvin's calculation was wrong because it didn't take into account radiation, which was not known about at the time.)

Anyway, I found the text for Darwin's Origin of Species 1st Edition online at
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1228/1228-h/1228-h.htm

Here is the relevant section:

I am tempted to give one other case, the well-known one of the denudation of the Weald. Though it must be admitted that the denudation of the Weald has been a mere trifle, in comparison with that which has removed masses of our palaeozoic strata, in parts ten thousand feet in thickness, as shown in Professor Ramsay's masterly memoir on this subject. Yet it is an admirable lesson to stand on the North Downs and to look at the distant South Downs; for, remembering that at no great distance to the west the northern and southern escarpments meet and close, one can safely picture to oneself the great dome of rocks which must have covered up the Weald within so limited a period as since the latter part of the Chalk formation. The distance from the northern to the southern Downs is about 22 miles, and the thickness of the several formations is on an average about 1100 feet, as I am informed by Professor Ramsay. But if, as some geologists suppose, a range of older rocks underlies the Weald, on the flanks of which the overlying sedimentary deposits might have accumulated in thinner masses than elsewhere, the above estimate would be erroneous; but this source of doubt probably would not greatly affect the estimate as applied to the western extremity of the district. If, then, we knew the rate at which the sea commonly wears away a line of cliff of any given height, we could measure the time requisite to have denuded the Weald. This, of course, cannot be done; but we may, in order to form some crude notion on the subject, assume that the sea would eat into cliffs 500 feet in height at the rate of one inch in a century. This will at first appear much too small an allowance; but it is the same as if we were to assume a cliff one yard in height to be eaten back along a whole line of coast at the rate of one yard in nearly every twenty-two years. I doubt whether any rock, even as soft as chalk, would yield at this rate excepting on the most exposed coasts; though no doubt the degradation of a lofty cliff would be more rapid from the breakage of the fallen fragments. On the other hand, I do not believe that any line of coast, ten or twenty miles in length, ever suffers degradation at the same time along its whole indented length; and we must remember that almost all strata contain harder layers or nodules, which from long resisting attrition form a breakwater at the base. Hence, under ordinary circumstances, I conclude that for a cliff 500 feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole length would be an ample allowance. At this rate, on the above data, the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years; or say three hundred million years.
avatar
dtgreene:
Kelvin.... radiation.... Oh is that where they got the idea for the movie 2012?

Interesting.... his point of doubt was unknown variations in the rock, but failed to take into account changing sea levels which comes under 'climate change' which would probably distort the results to a far greater extent than the rock variation.