• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How Old is the Earth?

Good discussion. How old is the universe? There are only two possible conclusions.

1) The universe has always existed in some form. ie. The Big Bang. Matter had to exist in some form to have come out of The Big Bang. So, something has always existed.

2) The universe was created by God. In which case it could have been just a few thousand years ago as stated by some in the religious community. God could have created the universe with a past, present and a future, which would explain why it appears to be billions of years old.

I suppose some scientists will contend that matter could create itself and that was The Big Bang. That is a hard sell.

My guess is that the universe has always existed. It is impossible for me to imagine nothingness. I will only experience that when I die and I won't be aware of it anyway. But my atomic weight will be here forever, just as it has been before I existed.
 

Some personal thoughts and insights here:

1) The Earth is only as old as Biblical chronology states.
The problem with this scenario is that it ignores terrestrial (geological) evidence and the dictums (physics) of comparative planetology. To ignore science is disingenuous and inexcusable. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." To consider this excellent advice in a strictly monetary sense is simplistic at best.

2) The universe simply must have come from somewhere!
You are looking at this only from the perspective of an inhabitant of this universe (Anthropic Principle) and furthermore you assume that the laws of this universe are the default standard for every universe. There is the very real possibility that our universe is part and parcel of a metaverse... an infinite and eternal entity where time as we understand it simply does not exist and has never existed.

3) Your various thoughts on cosmic energy levels.
Although the organization of our universe is in a constant flux (due to entropy etc.), we live in a "zero sum" universe. This means that our universe always contains the same amount of energy. Energy can only be transformed. To believe that energy is constantly being destroyed/replaced amounts to a belief in the "Steady State" theory espoused by the late physicist Fred Hoyle. This theory was proven to be false decades ago. Read up peeps.

4) Nothing is impossible!
As any physicist can tell you, what is possible and not possible in our universe is strictly governed by the laws of mathematics. Physics 101 - If something is not forbidden mathematically, then it is certainly possible.


 
Tashah said:
Walrus writes:



The above is known as *Olbers Paradox*. The foremost answer to this paradox is that the "observable universe" is finite. One must also remember that existant light photons farther away than our cosmic horizon (our current peer-back capability) have not yet reached us.

A secondary reason for Olbers Paradox is that as our universe expands, distant light becomes more redshifted. In astrophysics, "z" is the notation which denotes redshift. The farther one peers into the universe, the greater the value of z. Contrary to intuitive thought, this increasing value of z applies not to celestial objects per se, but to the accelerating fabric of the universe.

What comprises this "fabric of the universe", how is it different from other celestial objects, and its acceleration is measured with respect to what object? With respect to observers on earth? Then with respect to what do we measure the earth's acceleration? To the "fabric of the universe"?

Just wondering.
 
geekgrrl said:
What comprises this "fabric of the universe", how is it different from other celestial objects, and its acceleration is measured with respect to what object? With respect to observers on earth? Then with respect to what do we measure the earth's acceleration? To the "fabric of the universe"?
Just wondering.

The fabric of the universe is composed of 3 spatial attributes plus the attribute of time. This is commonly refered to as space-time and is denoted in physics by the mathematical notation 3:1.

Every celestial body in the universe is in motion. Defining motion in this sense of usage depends upon the frame(s) of reference...

1) The Earth spins on its axis.
2) The Earth and rotates around the Sun.
3) Our solar system is embedded in a rotating spiral galaxy.
4) Our galaxy is part and parcel of a moving Local Cluster.
5) The moving Local Cluster is part and parcel of a moving Super Cluster.
6) The Super Cluster is embedded in an expanding space-time.

Using Type 1a Supernova as a standard candle (object of reference), Cosmologists attempt to define the expansion rate of space-time by measuring redshift (z). This is a bit tricky because all subserviant motions have to be accounted for and then mathematically subtracted. The currently accepted value of 3:1 acceleration (motion) is roughly between 50-70 kps. Contrary to what was expected, this value is not a constant. In other words, the universe is expanding more rapidly now than it was in the past.

One must remember that the laws of physics apply to what is contained in space-time, but not to the fabric of space-time itself. As an example, the speed of light constant (c) is valid for what is within space-time, but not to space-time itself. The expansion rate of the universe itself is thus not constrained by the value (c). In theory then, the universe can attain a rate of acceleration greater than the speed of light constant or >(c).

The reference constancy of (c) is also dependent upon mass. Let's take a quanta such as a photon of light which has no mass. From our frame of reference, a photon must obey (c) which also dictates a time-parameter... such as a photon of light takes nine minutes to travel the distance between the Sun and the Earth. If you consider this event from the reference frame of the photon itself however, something very counter-intuitive happens. From the photon's frame of reference, no time at all has elapsed in its journey between the Sun and Earth. How can this be so? If a photon did indeed sense time, this would imply that it had mass and thus could not ever attain the speed of light. In other words, a photon that sensed time would be a contradiction of terms and an impossibility.

I hope some of this helps :)

 
GetVictd said:
[snip]

Vast deposits of fossilized plants, insects and animal life attest to the occurrence of a catastrophic flood on the earth. Fossils are formed only when they are rapidly buried by sediment and placed under pressure. During a great flood you would expect vast numbers of life on earth to be buried and preserved. It is not interesting that on earth today, few if any fossils are being preserved! Why? The force to make them in vast amounts, such as the Great Flood, is no longer operating.

Could not the flood have changed some things on earth giving them the impression of being older than they are?

If you're waiting for geological events to happen before your eyes, don't. They won't. You'll be disappointed. And you may even believe that things don't happen now the way they have before, as your question suggests you already think that way.

Give up on the 6000-year thang. It's a non-starter. Listen to the scientists. They have no agenda except the advancement of knowledge. They aren't going to try to sell you anything. There is no punishment for not believing them, unlike with the Bible-thumper contingent who preach fire and brimstone unless you believe the way they do.

Don't be a dupe. Read. Study. Think for yourself, just for once. Do it for yourself. Do it for your kids, so they won't grow up believing fairy tales to the point that they will be unemployable in a technological society. Please.
 
geekgrrl said:
If you're waiting for geological events to happen before your eyes, don't. They won't. You'll be disappointed. And you may even believe that things don't happen now the way they have before, as your question suggests you already think that way.

Give up on the 6000-year thang. It's a non-starter. Listen to the scientists. They have no agenda except the advancement of knowledge. They aren't going to try to sell you anything. There is no punishment for not believing them, unlike with the Bible-thumper contingent who preach fire and brimstone unless you believe the way they do.

Don't be a dupe. Read. Study. Think for yourself, just for once. Do it for yourself. Do it for your kids, so they won't grow up believing fairy tales to the point that they will be unemployable in a technological society. Please.


When man first landed on the moon, we brought large snow-shoe like shoes, because we had calculated the amount of dust that was expected to be on the moon (due to meteor impacts). We were expecting it to be a few feet deep... WHen we arrived, we were amazed at the fact that there was verly little dust found. When we calculated the age of the moon based upon the layer of dust it came up to between 6000 and 8000 years... Funny isn't it?
 
I had heard this moon-dust story before, but something about it struck me this time. I assume they had calculated the amount of dust they expected to find based on an assumed age of the moon of 4+ billion years. For the sake of argument let's use 4.5 billion. To err on the side of your argument, let's say they expected to find dust 100' deep (they expected to find far less). You say that the amount they actually found gave an age of 6-8 thousand years. In order for that to be the case, they would have only found 1/1000 of an inch of dust on the moon - which I am going to assume is too little to accurately measure. Remember, this was using an assumed depth of 100', and in fact the astronauts found around a foot of dust.

The moon dust story does not, in my opinion, pass the common sense test.
 
Tashah said:

The fabric of the universe is composed of 3 spatial attributes plus the attribute of time. This is commonly refered to as space-time and is denoted in physics by the mathematical notation 3:1.

Every celestial body in the universe is in motion. Defining motion in this sense of usage depends upon the frame(s) of reference...

1) The Earth spins on its axis.
2) The Earth and rotates around the Sun.
3) Our solar system is embedded in a rotating spiral galaxy.
4) Our galaxy is part and parcel of a moving Local Cluster.
5) The moving Local Cluster is part and parcel of a moving Super Cluster.
6) The Super Cluster is embedded in an expanding space-time.

Using Type 1a Supernova as a standard candle (object of reference), Cosmologists attempt to define the expansion rate of space-time by measuring redshift (z). This is a bit tricky because all subserviant motions have to be accounted for and then mathematically subtracted. The currently accepted value of 3:1 acceleration (motion) is roughly between 50-70 kps. Contrary to what was expected, this value is not a constant. In other words, the universe is expanding more rapidly now than it was in the past.

One must remember that the laws of physics apply to what is contained in space-time, but not to the fabric of space-time itself. As an example, the speed of light constant (c) is valid for what is within space-time, but not to space-time itself. The expansion rate of the universe itself is thus not constrained by the value (c). In theory then, the universe can attain a rate of acceleration greater than the speed of light constant or >(c).

The reference constancy of (c) is also dependent upon mass. Let's take a quanta such as a photon of light which has no mass. From our frame of reference, a photon must obey (c) which also dictates a time-parameter... such as a photon of light takes nine minutes to travel the distance between the Sun and the Earth. If you consider this event from the reference frame of the photon itself however, something very counter-intuitive happens. From the photon's frame of reference, no time at all has elapsed in its journey between the Sun and Earth. How can this be so? If a photon did indeed sense time, this would imply that it had mass and thus could not ever attain the speed of light. In other words, a photon that sensed time would be a contradiction of terms and an impossibility.

I hope some of this helps :)

Tashah,
Try and explain this. Other than the proposed expansion type motion of the Universe, what keeps the planets and their moons in constant, rhythmic, elliptical orbits with no visible source of power, other than gravity. In other words, if the gravity of our Sun is so great, why don't we crash into it instead of circling it from the same distance year after year. And the same for all the other heavenly bodies. What keeps everything in perfect balance. And don't tell me that everything is not in perfect balance, because it is.
 
milkrun said:
Tashah,
Try and explain this. Other than the proposed expansion type motion of the Universe, what keeps the planets and their moons in constant, rhythmic, elliptical orbits with no visible source of power, other than gravity. In other words, if the gravity of our Sun is so great, why don't we crash into it instead of circling it from the same distance year after year. And the same for all the other heavenly bodies. What keeps everything in perfect balance. And don't tell me that everything is not in perfect balance, because it is.
Sorry to disappoint you but our orbit around the Sun is always changing. It is never the same....

Why don't we crash into the Sun? Gravity works in more than one direction. Do you think the Moon is the same distance from the Earth it was 1 million years ago (or 9,994,000 years before the bible said the Earth was created?)

Did you ever study Astronomy? It's fascinating and chock full of facts that are provable...unlike the Creationist theory.
 
the earth's velocity (perpendicular to the acceleration caused by the sun's gravity) causes the earth to move around the sun in an elliptical orbit. And remember there's no air resistance in space to keep an object (in this case the earth) from moving.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Sorry to disappoint you but our orbit around the Sun is always changing. It is never the same....

Why don't we crash into the Sun? Gravity works in more than one direction. Do you think the Moon is the same distance from the Earth it was 1 million years ago (or 9,994,000 years before the bible said the Earth was created?)

Did you ever study Astronomy? It's fascinating and chock full of facts that are provable...unlike the Creationist theory.
Quick note here. The original scriptures actually say that the earth was created in 7 yohm. This can also mean period of time undisclosed. This is obviously the translation that is now accepted among the knowledgeable, due to scientific findings.
 
nkgupta80 said:
the earth's velocity (perpendicular to the acceleration caused by the sun's gravity) causes the earth to move around the sun in an elliptical orbit. And remember there's no air resistance in space to keep an object (in this case the earth) from moving.
Acceleration toward the Sun can be attributed to gravity. But acceleration away from the Sun needs another factor. An elliptical orbit has an acceleration point which slings the smaller object away from the larger one with sufficient speed to escape the gravitational pull of the larger mass. This can only be accomplished by a lateral shifting of the larger object which keeps the smaller mass in a perpetual motion elliptical orbit. Otherwise the orbit would be circular and would decay rather quickly.

If you have ever played with a paddle and ball attached with a rubber band, you know how elliptical orbits can continue to exist for billions of years. The lateral motion of your arm holding the paddle keeps the ball in motion. If you stop your arm from moving the ball will lose motion.

This must mean that all of the planets orbiting our Sun are in plane with each other and also must be located in such a way as not to be in conflict with other planets. Otherwise, the Sun would not be the center of our galaxy because it couldn't be shifted in two different directions at the same time. The lateral shift also must be counter balanced by another mass of equal size and gravitational pull because it can't cause a lateral shift by itself.

A spacecraft can sling itself around the moon by using it's thrust engines. But a unpowered object like a planet can't cause the acceleration point needed to break free of gravity.

It is interesting that under this model of planetary movement, it actually makes more sense mathmatically that the Sun, Moon, planets and everything else move in an elliptical orbit around the Earth if you think of the Earth as an island with a magnetic field. Oh well, we know that's not the case.
 
walrus said:
I had heard this moon-dust story before, but something about it struck me this time. I assume they had calculated the amount of dust they expected to find based on an assumed age of the moon of 4+ billion years. For the sake of argument let's use 4.5 billion. To err on the side of your argument, let's say they expected to find dust 100' deep (they expected to find far less). You say that the amount they actually found gave an age of 6-8 thousand years. In order for that to be the case, they would have only found 1/1000 of an inch of dust on the moon - which I am going to assume is too little to accurately measure. Remember, this was using an assumed depth of 100', and in fact the astronauts found around a foot of dust.

The moon dust story does not, in my opinion, pass the common sense test.

THe problem is that the scientists who did the calculations originally weren't basing the age of the moon as 4.5 billion years. They were estimating a lot less time...
 
Quertol said:
THe problem is that the scientists who did the calculations originally weren't basing the age of the moon as 4.5 billion years. They were estimating a lot less time...

Ok, you brought up this little fable, so what age were they using? If you cut the assumed age in half (2.25 billion years) you are still looking at far less than 1/100 of an inch of dust. Even if they only assumed 1 million years (and scientists have believed the Earth far older than that since well before 1969) you would still only have 1/2" of dust (and remember, this is using a depth of 100' of dust equals the age of the Earth - scientists didn't expect to find anywhere near 100' of dust). This is a charming anecdote, and I am sure it convinces some people - just not me.

By the way, I am not denying that there was less dust than expected. That is a pretty well established fact. There was in fact around 1' of dust found most places. What I am objecting to is the idea that the actual measurement came out to 6,000 years. a) from all the information I have found, combined with common sense it isn't true and b) what kind of an instrument would you use to measure dust-depth that is accurate to less than 1/10000 of an inch? (you would have to measure accurately to this level to obtain any sort of estimate of age - an error in measurement of 1/100 of an inch would result in a difference of over 100,000 years)
 
Last edited:
walrus said:
Ok, you brought up this little fable, so what age were they using? If you cut the assumed age in half (2.25 billion years) you are still looking at far less than 1/100 of an inch of dust. Even if they only assumed 1 million years (and scientists have believed the Earth far older than that since well before 1969) you would still only have 1/2" of dust (and remember, this is using a depth of 100' of dust equals the age of the Earth - scientists didn't expect to find anywhere near 100' of dust). This is a charming anecdote, and I am sure it convinces some people - just not me.

By the way, I am not denying that there was less dust than expected. That is a pretty well established fact. There was in fact around 1' of dust found most places. What I am objecting to is the idea that the actual measurement came out to 6,000 years. a) from all the information I have found, combined with common sense it isn't true and b) what kind of an instrument would you use to measure dust-depth that is accurate to less than 1/10000 of an inch? (you would have to measure accurately to this level to obtain any sort of estimate of age - an error in measurement of 1/100 of an inch would result in a difference of over 100,000 years)

How about cut that to 100,000... Doesn't matter... Human science can not match Omni-science... For how does one make something from nothing, simply by telling it to be so?
 
what is omni-science.
 
nkgupta80 said:
what is omni-science.

omniscience...

omni-meaning all

science-meaning knowledge...

Only one is omniscient and that is God...
 
Quertol said:
Human science can not match Omni-science.

Omni-science? Perhaps you mean Deistic Design?

Your offering here is pretzel-logic. To state that human science is no match for *Omni-science* implies that you yourself understand omniscence and are able to evaluate and judge each status (human science vs. Omni-science).

Human science and theology are separate realms and comparisons are disingenuous and counterproductive.

 
Tashah said:

Omni-science? Perhaps you mean Deistic Design?

Your offering here is pretzel-logic. To state that human science is no match for *Omni-science* implies that you yourself understand omniscence and are able to evaluate and judge each status (human science vs. Omni-science).

Human science and theology are separate realms and comparisons are disingenuous and counterproductive.


In that you are wrong...

When someone considers the limited understanding compared to perfect and all understanding, you can't help but realize that we, as humans, are inferior to God...

There is a difference from comparing human knowledge to all knowledge , and comparing human knowledge to theology...
 
Well sure we're inferior to God. God may be all knowledge, theology isn't all knowledge. No theological doctrine showed us how to build an integrated circuit, cure smallpox, fly in airplanes. And no theological doctrine can even begin to give us the extent of god's knowledge.
 
nkgupta80 said:
Well sure we're inferior to God. God may be all knowledge, theology isn't all knowledge. No theological doctrine showed us how to build an integrated circuit, cure smallpox, fly in airplanes. And no theological doctrine can even begin to give us the extent of god's knowledge.

exactly... :lol:
 
Quertol said:
There is a difference from comparing human knowledge to all knowledge , and comparing human knowledge to theology...

Last time I checked... all theologic material was duly written by our hand.

 
Tashah said:

Last time I checked... all theologic material was duly written by our hand.


The bible was written under the inspiration of God...
 
we can't ever be sure of that. Many other religions says the same thing. Qu'ran was written under inspiration of god. Vedas was written under insipiration of God. And they all have their own list of miracles to prove it. Which is why all theological material, I believe, cannot be compared to human science, as it is solely based on faith. It gives us a way to live our life, but not a method of learning about our surroundings and our universe.
 
milkrun said:
The universe is eternal because matter cannot be destroyed, it can only change forms. This means that, for an example, there is as much water today as there has always been. It's form changes from liquid to solid to gas in different amounts over time. But the total quantity can't increase or decrease over time.

The same goes for all forms of matter. It can't be destroyed. So how will the universe end? Only by it's creator willing it to be gone. Are we just game pieces to amuse God? The Greeks thought so thru their religion.

Religion is a business. God doesn't exist. Life will go on forever under it's own power. We are temporary minds trying to feel immortal.

I always thought that it was 'energy' that can not be destroyed. Not 'water'.
 
Back
Top Bottom