The Age Of The Earth & Religious Uproar

Young Earth Creationists rejoice!! For you have a momentous new task before you- find another scripture(or reinterpret a previously recycled idea) which can explain away an entire mountain range island which points out that scientists' theory concerning the age of our planet is correct.

It has been immensely entertaining watching the emotional fireworks show in the comment area. I've listed a few of the more interesting comments below, after the article.

Chunk of Original Earth Found
Pocket of rock survived 4.5 billion years without being mixed by plate tectonics

By Larry O'Hanlon

updated 8/11/2010 1:59:20 PM ET

Imagine you suddenly discovered part of your umbilical cord was still attached. Scientists just did that for the planet Earth. What's been found is a clear sign that beneath the crust in northern Canada there is a chunk of pristine, undisturbed rock from the time when Earth was nothing but molten rock.

The evidence comes in the form of lava rocks that, themselves, are a mere 60 million years old. But these rocks contain an early Earth mixture of helium, lead and neodymium isotopes which suggest the mantle rock beneath the crust that yielded them is a virgin pocket of Earth's original material.

That pocket had survived for 4.5 billion years under Baffin Island without being mixed by plate tectonics or erupted onto the surface.

"I was surprised that any of the (original) mantle survived," said geoscientist Matthew Jackson of Boston University. He is the lead author on a paper announcing the discovery in this week's issue of the journal Nature. "Finding a piece of the original mantle has been a holy grail. The original Earth was a big ball of magma. That's our (planet's) original composition."

The discovery has surprised other researchers as well.

"Even if a vestige of such material remained, it seems unlikely that it would be found in any samples from Earth's surface or the shallow subsurface that are available to geologists," observed David Graham of Oregon State University in Corvallis, who wrote a commentary in the same issue of Nature. "Yet that is what (this) new evidence suggests."

One of the obstacles in finding rocks from such ancient mantle, up to now, has been that researchers had assumed an early Earth was composed of rocks with helium and lead isotope matching those of a type of ancient meteorite called a chondrite.

That may be true up to a point, said Jackson. Some recent research by scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington has suggested that the Earth's early mantle would also have tell-tale neodymium isotopes that are unlike chondrites.

"That turns out to be the same as we find in these lavas (from Baffin Island)," said Jackson.

The other signs of untouched ancient mantle material -- which has not before lost any of its material to Earth's surface or been otherwise tainted -- is large amount of the isotopes helium-3 relative to helium-4. There is also an very old lead-isotope signature. It was these three criteria -- the helium, lead and neodymium -- that led Jackson and his team to the conclusion Baffin Islands massive volcanic cliffs are made of the oldest material on the planet.

As for how much of this original mantle might be around, the only way to tell is to look at lava rocks and see if they came from such stuff, said Jackson.

"We have no idea how common it might be," Jackson told Discovery News. Models suggest that up to 10 percent of the early mantle might still be around. But the new discovery could change those models and their predictions. "It turns everything on its head."

~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~

A commenter named "Mekinism" has been wonderfully instructive in the YEC perspective.

"Science doesn't 'prove' anything. Science is a tool used by humans to interpret facts."

"i've been seeing these atheist (and yes humanism is a religion) scientists publishing more and more 'big stories' lately. They have to stick with what the know still works these days - evolution/billions of years. They go on and and on about 'the facts' with the same old logical fallacies about how 'science has proved' something. If you start with the old concepts of uniformitarianism and no catastrophic events - you'll get your billions of years. If you start with a literal, straight reading of the Bible - you'll get around 6000 - and yes, the same 'facts' will back it up."

"apollyon - very true - science is science - so why does science try to answer a history question when it comes to origins? there is absolutely no way to empirically test the age of a basalt flow without making a LOT of assumptions. In this case - assumptions rooted in atheism.

The consistant Christian has the inerrant Word of God as his starting point and views the facts from that standpoint."

Oh no, "Pbarb" caught onto the fact that this YEC'er believes science is encumbered with too many atheists and not enough literalist Christians!!!! He/she said:

"Science doesn't make assumptions based on atheism (as you stated, Mekinism). To state you can only look at facts through "humanistic or biblical glasses" shows your bias, as if the Christianity is the only religion out there. And then to state that conclusions made through those lenses have just as much basis in fact is just ridiculous. For example, a conclusion made through "biblical glasses" evolution can not have occurred since God created man and animals. This is obviously not the case, and if you feel otherwise then there is probably no point in arguing. Science is ideally unbiased, but when assumptions have to be made they are based on logic and knowledge, nothing else."

Mekinism comes back with:

"I also didn't say that science makes atheistic assumptions - i said it's a tool - that if one believes there is no God - their findings will reflect that. If one starts from the Bible - then it shows something else -"

Exactly. Starting from the Bible makes absolute sense!!! .... for about ten minutes. Then you remember that the Earth isn't flat and the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth.

Mekinism finishes off that cringe-worthy statement with something I wanted to crawl under the table and hide from, it was so forehead-slappable.

"as for Christianity being the "only religion out there" i'm just standing on the Bibles own claim to being the infallible Word of God."

If you didn't cry in abject horror of that circular logic go back and reread the sentence.

Earthcentrism- Look How Far We've Come

Young Earth Creationists state that our universe is only 6,000 years old. Oh wait. They changed their mind a few years back and added four thousand to that. So make that ten millenia. This number is based on some sort of pseudo science and literalist interpretation of the book of Genesis. Their data changes every few years to keep up with the twists and turns real science.

According to YEC's dinosaurs were friendly and played with Adam and Eve. Carnivorous dinosaurs only became meat eaters after The Fall. Sharp horns and teeth were previously only used for play or mating displays. Another theory is that God miraculously changed all the newly damned carnivore's teeth to go from being flat to suddenly fitting the carnivorous profile(sharp canines and sharper front teeth for tearing) we now recognize.

Since the Big Bang theory was proposed, examined, and had entire new branches of science(stellar radiation, etc) submit information concerning the age of galaxies and stars farther away from us as well as the MOVEMENT of these formations, we've come a long way. Scientists now believe the earth is around 4.6 billion years old and have fossil records to support this claim. Not that YEC's care much. Their method of 'debunking' geological science is pointing at the Bible and then plugging their ears. You could try discussing archeological finds with a Young Earther but you'd get nowhere fast.

Scientists start by looking at what IS instead of what is written about the past. They go from zero and build their case based on what they see right in front of them. If what they find happens to coincide with historical writings then that's great! It's an amazing piece of history which was written about by humans in the past and celebrated as such. But if what they find in a laboratory contradicts what is found in an archeological record then the facts as they found them are published and that's that. The lab scientists let the other historians fight it out.

Earthcentrism(our planet being the center of the universe or at least the beginning of anything worthwhile) is an egotistical idea which has been molded over time, though not by much. Literalists have taken to flouting interpretations of the book of Genesis without anything at all to back them up, making for some pretty messed up rhetoric to feed to the common masses. Let's examine a few arguments:

Philo Judaeus(Philon the Jew) wrote, initially quoting Genesis in his tract On the Account of the World's Creation given by Moses(De Opificio Mundi), "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." "Beginning should not be conceived in a chronological sense for time cannot be before there was a world. Time began either simultaneously with the world or after it. For time is a measured space determined of the world's movement, and since movement could not be prior to the object moving ... it follows of necessity that time also is coeval with or later born than the world."

That is the earthcentrism I am speaking of. Everything good or worthwhile revolving around what's going on with Earth. All the other planets and stars are trivial. Right? Why can't time be before our planet existed? As you can see Philo created some weak rhetoric. All you have to do is ask the very opposite questions he is proposing and his argument falls apart like a house of cards.

We're essentially talking about Schrodinger's cat; "An observation being made can only then be measured." But humans and the mighty microscope are not the end all. Just because we didn't witness it doesn't mean that it doesn't hold value. The cat is both alive and dead based on WITNESS to the box opening. God being the one who crammed the cat in the box and opened it afterward gives us the story. Or is it a prophet writing down the words of God? And how do we stretch God's "days" out through 4.6 billion years or even a mere thousand years? We don't have a witness. Not one. Because we were not in existence yet. That is the paradox.

Augustine of Hippo, for all his wishy-washy and confused religious leanings, had at least enough sense to ask the right questions. "If God made heaven and earth in some beginning of time, what was he doing before he made heaven and earth? And why did he suddenly decide to make what he had not previously made through eternal time?"

In other words, why did God suddenly decide to create our cosmos? Augustine asks why while Einstein asks how. Religion and science meet.

Though Augustine couldn't have known it at the time this is what science proves thus far-

Big Bang's proposed explosion date: average of 13.5 billion years ago.
Geology's date for the Earth's "birth": 4.6 billion years ago
= BIG DARN GAP!

By the time of Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, the issue was once again up in the air and this time moderation prevailed. In Aquinas tract De aeternitate mundi which summarized the 'beginninglessness' of the world he declared, "We hold by faith alone, and it cannot be proved by demonstration, that the world did not always exist... the reason being that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated by the world itself."

At least the word 'faith' was used in its proper context. Science was in no position to sway anyone at that time. Too many questions and not enough technology to run with ideas. And poor Galileo learned the hard way through house arrest that even leaps in scientific achievements with the telescope were not allowed. The Church was too egotistical to allow reason to prevail.

If you only have science to give age to something in a local region then how do you compare it to anything else outside your region if you don't have the tools to study this farther region? What is your solid point of reference? Until we began dating our own sun and closest stars within our own galaxy and then began reaching beyond, we really had no hope of being objective on the matter of age at all. Our point of reference(Earth) was too close. Too young. And far too changeable with its layers and weather and erosion.

Einstein, at least, was remembered fondly by the Church. Even with as much as the man was dragged into dialogues about religion he managed to stay true to himself. Pope John Paul II said in November of 1979 at the Pontifical Academy meeting held in honor of the centenary birth of Einstein,

"On the occasion of this solemn commemoration of Einstein, I would like to confirm again the Council's declaration on the autonomy of science in its function of searching for the truth inscribed during the creation by the finger of God. Filled with admiration for the genius of the great scientist, in whom is revealed the imprint of the creative spirit, without intervening in any way with a judgment on the doctrines concerning the great systems of the universe, which is not in her power to make, the Church nevertheless recommends these doctrines for consideration by the theologians in order to discover the harmony that exists between scientific truth and revealed truth."

By dousing a good fifty percent of the Church's arrogant attitude much was gained. Science flourished.

Einstein relegated his personal religion to being defined as "awe." And honestly, isn't that a safer path to take when we are still such a young species?