The Age Of The Earth

Scientists have found that the Earth was formed about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that also formed the Sun. As gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps, it became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals. These objects collided repeatedly and gradually got bigger, building up the planets in the Solar System. Although scientists are very close to answering the question, they still continue to search for the exact answer to how the Earth was created. With all the evidence presented, it is hard to refute from scientific theories. This becomes cumbersome to many religions because in their eyes God has always been the creator of the Earth.

The age of the earth has been debated for centuries. Many people believe in evolution that it took billions of years for everything and everyone to form. Others believe that God created the earth in seven days and that the earth is young. Secular scientist and Christian scientist both use different methods for determining how old the earth is. For example, Secular scientist look and use the layers of rocks to help them, while Christian scientist uses the Bible and look at historical data from other cultures to help them. Doesn't looking at archeological data seem more accurate than looking at rocks? If the earth is truly billions of years old, then why is there little sediment on the sea floor? Or how can secular scientist explain finding soft tissue in a fossil if the earth is old? The most logical explanation is that the earth is young. Many people believe something just because people say that it is true, sometimes it is good to investigate for yourself and see if it is good for you.

Young- Earth view point on the age of earth is based on not only science but the Bible as well. There try to combine the two areas in an effort to present the true age of the earth. One of the areas they use is how long it takes for material to harden. They present

Throughout history, science has always faced challenges from outside groups who work to mold science to their beliefs, ignoring evidence and commonly held facts. Following in the legacy of the flat world and an Earth centered Universe, young Earth creationists bend science to fit their explanations of the Earth’s origin and timeline. Evidence for the ancient age of the Earth is present in every discipline of Earth science and directly refutes claims made by young Earth creationists. It is important to examine these claims and rebut them, as their denial of proper scientific understanding hampers progress and has wider implications for the future of our society.

The old-Earth evolution and young-Earth creation debate has been one that has gone on for centuries. Each viewpoint seeks to give an answer to life’s most difficult questions or origins and how the Earth came to be what it resembles today. While the Young Earth viewpoint has remained constant and unchanged throughout the centuries the Old Earth view seems to be continually evolving as new discoveries tend to discredit previous assumptions. One certainty is that both viewpoints take a dogmatic stance against each other in regards to the interpretation of scientific evidence. The purpose of this paper is to compare old-Earth and

L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Missouri, 2000.

APSC 151 MIDTERM FALL 2017 1) Compared to the age of the Universe of about 14 billion years, the currently accepted age of Earth is about ________ years as determined by using radioactivity for dating rocks and minerals. A) 4.6 thousand B) 4.6 billion C) 5.4 million D) 13.7 billion 2) The ________ division of the geologic time scale is an era of the Phanerozoic Eon. A) Paleocene B) Paleozoic C) Permian D) Proterozoic 3) The Earth's core was formed from ________. A) a massive nickel iron asteroid that was the nucleus upon which Earth condensed B) high density radioactive carbon C) the left over nickel and iron that would not fit into the earlier formed crust and mantle D) molten iron and nickel that

The debate about the age of the Earth has persisted for centuries! Some scientists try to disprove Christians and some Christians try to disprove scientific evidence. Nevertheless, there is a surprising number of Christians and scientists who have worked together to give their opinion about the age of the Earth by using both Biblical and scientific facts. The purpose of this essay is to succinctly describe both Old Earth and Young Earth viewpoints. My opinion about the matter will follow, in which I will provide Biblical evidence to support my claims.

3.) “It’s just unreasonable,” Nye says, “How can you conclude that the Earth is somehow 6,000 years old?” The Earth is not 6,000 years old!” Bill Nye mocks the idea of a global Flood remodeling the surface of the earth. He does not see how biblical Flood can explain what we observe in nature, such

We have learned that the Catholic Church does not teach us any scientific things just for a little bit. He bible tells us about the great changes in the lives of other people, animals, and us as we live on the earth. Catholics. The Catholic people would probably never really think of evolution as being a way of understanding how something can change so dramatically, they might say to them selves" God does things for a reason", so they might not even think about the changes in detail like other people might do. Many Catholics share the fundamental beliefs as their own personal opinion. They may pick the parts they want to seem more reasonable and make more sense, and more

It has been known for well over a century now that the Earth’s core, mantle and the crust make up the basic structure of the Earth. However, there is some controversy over how and when the Earth produced its core, mantle and crust. In this essay, I will first discuss about the formation of the Early Earth and its Moon, then about the methods used to pinpoint the age of the Earth. Other than that, I will also expand on core and mantle formation, as well as the eventual production of the continental crust.

The stupidity of people amazes me. This is not to say that I am the smartest person or anything but it still seems like adults, some having obtained several college degrees, would stop to think before they opened their mouths. That these ‘geniuses’ would put down their own personal views and beliefs long enough to see the clear and logical answer. Instead, they are clouded by their ingrained thought and thus cannot give an unbiased opinion. Julius R. Oppenheimer is a perfect example. This exemplary theoretical physicist and scholar was man was quoted by theologian and philosopher Francis Schaeffer as saying: “Christianity is just a person’s personal belief, while modern science is a fact. Christians should not press their beliefs upon their society.” I cannot begin to state how much this statement boggles my mind. He not only states that his personal beliefs or lack thereof, are proof against Christianity but that the unproven scientific theories that he holds are fact. The argument here is not against his beliefs but against his unwaveringness towards those of others.

Creation science, on the other hand, is not science but pseudoscience and it is connected to a particular group of fundamentalist Christians. Most Christians,

The creation theory includes over 500 different creation stories based on numerous religions (Religious Tolerance, 2004). The vast number of stories creates strains on which evolution story is accurate. Christians that are creationists take the bible literally and believe the earth is around 10,000 years old. The creation theory will always exist with religion, so the creation theory can never be proved wrong since it is simply a religious belief. Religion is still very important in the United States, and the acceptance of the naturalization theory would completely change Christianity all together. Religious Tolerance, a website that outlays the conflict of evolution vs. creationism, explains how naturalism would shake Christianity. Religious tolerance states that the acceptance of evolution would make people interpret Genesis symbolically and classify evolution stories as myths. Since the creation stories are closely tied to the fall of man and to original sin, the entire role of Jesus would change. Without original sin, there would be no need for a savior, and Christianity would change drastically. This further proves that the creation theory will live as long as religion. The Gallup Organization studies what percentages of Americans believe in each of

For decades the age of the Earth has been a major conflict between science and religion, but why is it such a big conflict? If, in the year AD 1600, an individual had asked an educated European how old the planet Earth was and to recount its history, the response would have been that it was about 6000 years old and that its ancient history was given by the biblical account in Genesis (Changing Views of the History of the Earth). If one asked the same question of an educated European in AD 1900, one would have received a totally different answer (Changing Views of the History of the Earth). The answer would have been the Earth was ancient, there had not been a Noachian flood, and that the species of life had not been fixed over the history of Earth (Changing Views of the History of the Earth). In short, Genesis was an allegory and not literal history (Changing Views of the History of the Earth). This brings up the different views between “young earth creationists” and “old earth creationists” and those that support an infinite universe. The problem today is each side contains major valid points of evidence of both biblical and scientific, on the age of the planet Earth.