While I don't believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth, I notice that this belief is fervently held and guarded by most of the scientific community. I want to know what methods they use to come to this conclusion, and how logically sound their theories are. I would like to have an in depth conversation about their dating methods, the problems with these methods, and how probable they actually are from an unbiased perspective.
My reason for wanting to discuss this is that I consider myself to be an amateur apologist (someone who can provide a compelling defense for their religious beliefs). To many of the unbelievers that I am friends and colleagues with, they consider the Bible to be mumbo jumbo, and I cannot effectively use the Bible to witness to them. I need sound logical evidence that their current belief systems are lies (although I am all-too-aware that some people refuse to consider Christianity no matter what)
So let's start with these two questions: Why do scientists believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? What dating methods are they using to deduce these theories?
Thank you for your participation, solving problems is so much easier when we all work together. =D
Interesting topic.
Let me pose a point or three here. Radioactive dating is "very complex" that equates to Mother answering little Johny's question "Why?" behave a certain way with because ...." I said so"
I want to suggest that radioactive dating is a 'stab in the dark at best.......why? (not because I said so
) but because we simply do not and can not know enough about conditions that existed even just 1000 years ago, let alone an alleged 4.5 or so billion years ago.
The half life of unstable elements is what is used in radiometric dating, but............................
If we could start out with a sample of 100% pure uranium, the half life of that would be less that the probable life span of a single atom of uranium. (talking about the same unstable isotope)
So to put this in simple terms, the radioactive decay rate of unstable isotopes would not be linear but logarithmic in nature and without a definite known starting point, extrapolation is a fanciful guess at best.
So we/they assume a given isotope concentration at day dot, and assume a linear decay rate and bingo...we have a highly authoritative guess (sarcasm intended) at the age of something.
"older" rocks on top of "younger " rocks????? How can this in actual reality be? If the Earth was formed all at the same time (as surly it was) then this rock is just as old....or as young as that rock.
Something to ponder here:::
Pet 3:5
For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,(not materially, but by process)
2Pet 3:6
and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
I would like to suggest that here Peter is not talking about the world in the context of people, but rather the ball of rock we and they call home.
Though not detailed as a science paper, the flood account does suggest massive geologic upheaval (the fountains of the deep)* and so Peter's comment ..."the world that
then was" could well embody an understanding that the ball of rock we call home now, is very different from the ball of rock preflood-ites called home.
* Recent surveys of offshore regions have discovered vast quantities of sub-ocean floor deposits of relatively fresh water. These might be/probably are what the Bible (written long ago) was referring to as the 'fountains of the deep'
Gen 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
So the flood was not only as a result of forty days of rain from above, but also from the welling up of waters contained below.
Gen 8:2
The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,
Just a few things to ponder and digest.
