How we know the earth is older than 6000 years

All our evidence for changes in the Earth comes from looking at rocks. Folds and fossils in sedimentary rocks, radioactive dating and the weathering of ancient craters show that the oldest rocks are about 4000 million years old. That means the Earth must be at least as old as this. It is from being able to understand the age of the rocks on the earth that we know how old the earth itself is. The technique of dating the age of rocks is known as radiometric dating:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating.

For specifics of how the rocks are used to evaluate the age of the earth, please see this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth, which gives much more detail on the geological calculations used in this science. 

 You might also be interested in this recent data from National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140224-oldest-crust-australia-zircon-science/, 

which finds the Earth to be 4.4 Billion years old (4400 000 000).

Kind regards,

Victoria

Public Information Volunteer
David Suzuki Foundation
219 – 2211 West 4th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V6K 4S2
604-732-4228
www.davidsuzuki.org

Creationism vs Evolution

ancestry

How people in various countries view the theory of evolution

IT IS 150 years since the publication of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which suggested that all living things are related and that everything is ultimately descended from a single common ancestor. This has troubled many, including Darwin himself, as it subverted ideas of divine intervention. It is not surprising that the countries least accepting of evolution today tend to be the most devout. In the most recent international survey available, only Turkey is less accepting of the theory than America. Iceland and Denmark are Darwin's most ardent adherents. Indeed America has become only slightly more accepting of Darwin's theory in recent years. In 2008 14% of people polled by Gallup agreed that “man evolved over millions of years”, up from 9% in 1982.

From Economist.com

Dutch Creationist Ark

A half-sized replica of the biblical Noah's Ark has been built by Dutch Creationist Johan Huibers, complete with model animals, as testament to his literal belief in the Bible.

The ark is 150 cubits long, 30 cubits high and 20 cubits wide. That's two-thirds the length of a football field and as high as a three-story house.

"I knew the story of Noah, but I had no idea the boat would have been so big." 

There is enough space near the keel for a 50-seat film theater where kids can watch a video that tells the story of Noah and his ark. Huibers said he hopes the project will renew interest in Christianity in the Netherlands, where church-going has fallen dramatically in the past 50 years.

An earlier reference to Creationism on this blog here.

The Creation Of Creationism

John Habgood, formerly Anglican Archbishop of York, reviews “The Creationists” by Ronald L. Numbers:

Ronald Numbers has given us what must surely be the definitive study of the rise and growth of a cluster of well-meaning, but irrational, theories over a period of some 160 years. The Creationists is an expanded version of an earlier edition published in 1991. During the interval, the proportion of Americans who favour some form of Creationism has risen from 47 per cent to 65.5 per cent and the phenomenon has spread worldwide. The fact that such extremism has now become global should worry theologians as well as scientists.

That came after a long discussion about creationism’s history. Here’s a bit more:

Fundamentalism tends to discount the significance of historical development in the biblical narratives, preferring to treat each revealed word as a relevant expression of God’s truth. This encourages a concentration on supposedly infallible statements, detached from their historical context and from the intentions of those who wrote them, thus paradoxically imitating those sciences in which statements of fact can be treated as objectively precise. Conflict with science is the inevitable result. The “fact” of God’s design, for instance, has to be defended in ways that are incompatible with the “fact” of natural selection.

Habgood's entire review is here.