It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Age of the Earth - Can it be trusted?

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
In the year 1770, the official age of earth was 70,000 years old.
In the year 1905, the official age of earth was 2 billion years old.
In the year 1969, the official age of earth was 3.5 billion years old.
In the year 2014, the official age of earth is 4.45 billion years old.

Now looking at the historical dates, you will find an upward trend of about 38 years per minute.

Now I do understand the argument of science becoming more accurate and/or reliable. But if you look at history, scientist have been wrong more than 244 time, just in one area.

Now the question is, at what point should we start believing scientists about the age of the earth, because the last 244 years has shown that the age of the earth will become even older next year, proving that science was wrong the previous year.

Should we expect the official age of the earth in the year 2015 to be 4.47 billion years old?



+11 more 
posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent
well, according to some in 2014, the earth is only 6000 years old....



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent

As more accurate dating methods are developed and more data comes in, the numbers will change accordingly. This is a good thing, it's how science works.

You can't really compare the results of dating methods from over 300 years ago and methods from today and conclude "the ages have changed, the science can't be trusted". A hell of a lot more has change over the last 300 years than just dating techniques.
edit on 1-12-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)


+21 more 
posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Isn't it just awful that science is not dogmatic, and adjusts it's theories as new evidence is analysed? Why cant they just bloody pick a number and stick with it eh? New findings be damned!



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: IndependentAgent

As more accurate dating methods are developed and more data comes in, the numbers will change accordingly. This is a good thing, it's how science works.

You can't really compare the results of dating methods from over 300 years ago and methods from today and conclude "the ages have changed, the science can't be trusted". A hell of a lot more has change over the last 300 years than just dating techniques.


Let us then only look at 2013, where the age was 4.3 BYO. At what stage should we trust the age? Because that means that after 300 years, science is in a way still not accurate.


+19 more 
posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Science is accurate in that it shows the earth is old, as opposed to mythology stating that it's young.


+10 more 
posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
In the 1500's, people thought sickness was caused by demons.

In the 1600's, people thought sickness was caused by Miasma

In the 1700's, people thought sickness was caused by Foul Odors

In the 1800's, people began to understand sickness was caused by tiny living creatures called bacteria and viruses.

in the 1900's, We began developing advanced medical techniques.

Now, human life expectancy has all but doubled.

Just because science made mistakes in the past, doesn't mean current science is incorrect. Is the science of dating the earth perfected? Probably not, we'll probably continue to learn more about our earth, just as we continue to learn more about medicine.

That's the beauty of science. Old data is discarded or revamped as soon as new data comes along which disproves it.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent

On the surface, you make a good case and it looks like folk are just making it up or guessing the age of the Earth. At the least, it shows that we shouldn't presume that the current estimated age is the same as it might be in the future.

Nevertheless, if you take the time to read about the variety of ways science has arrived at the dating, I feel sure you'll agree that it's going to be very close to the actual age. It hasn't been worked out by one person or one field of science. It's a figure that's been arrived at through multiple fields and verified by supporting evidence that continues to accrue.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent

How can you say whether on not the science is (in)accurate? Also, note that the age has been increasing, not jumping all over the place. We have some pretty damn high tech tools and techniques for analysing age that weren't even conceivable a few generations ago and they all correlate. Funnily enough, it's no trivial feat doing such science. What do you propose we do instead? Make a figure up? Count the ages in the bible?



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: IndependentAgent


Nevertheless, if you take the time to read about the variety of ways science has arrived at the dating, I feel sure you'll agree that it's going to be very close to the actual age. It hasn't been worked out by one person or one field of science. It's a figure that's been arrived at through multiple fields and verified by supporting evidence that continues to accrue.



But scientists say that every year.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent

I grew up knowing for a fact that the Moon is dry. Now I know for a fact that it isn't.

Times change and science is fluid. Some scientists ride a high horse and forget that many of their predecessors were utterly wrong. They should realise that they could be wrong too one day.

Still, if you read a few papers and articles about how so many have arrived at the age of the Earth, you'll appreciate that it's unlikely to alter very much.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: IndependentAgent

How can you say whether on not the science is (in)accurate? Also, note that the age has been increasing, not jumping all over the place.


This is off-topic, but the methods used to date the earth does jump all over the place. 10 samples from the same item, which was originally dated as being 200 million years old, was later dated as being between 0.52 and 2.64 million years old.

But as I have said, it is off-topic



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
In 2014 scientists say that carbon is warming the earth...
Just saying



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Science is as accurate as the tools we use, the data we have and the theories that are developed using the tools and data.

Because of this first principles approach, tools, data and concepts are all constantly revisited when new knowledge is discovered, and so there are revisions and adjustments to constantly improve accuracy and our understanding of the universe.

Take Pi for instance... should we trust Pi?

Pi is constantly being calculated to more accuracy, and by your reasoning, "science", "is in a way still not accurate" about Pi.

Pi was thought to be a nice solid "3" at one point, then it was a rationalisation of ever increasing polygons, then it was 22/7, then 355/113, etc, all approximations... We've only calculated Pi to 10 trillion places now... can we really trust it?

By the way, science is not a religion so it doesn't claim absolutes.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Times change and science is fluid. Some scientists ride a high horse and forget that many of their predecessors were utterly wrong. They should realise that they could be wrong too one day.


Not that is true.


Still, if you read a few papers and articles about how so many have arrived at the age of the Earth, you'll appreciate that it's unlikely to alter very much.


Define "very much".



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere

By the way, science is not a religion so it doesn't claim absolutes.


Why then does scientists say that they are "absolutely sure that the earth is that old"



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
But.... But... mythology does not say it is young... At all!

I think quoting Christianity is like saying all chips are bad for you. Which is not true. There is kale chips, yam chips, seaweed chips ect.

A lot of ancient societies have said there was a world wide cataklysm followed by a world wide flood.
From what is known previous to these events.

The bible speculates that everyone spoke one language ( Which would imply a globalized civilization similar to our own)
It also speculates that they were building a tower so that man could reach the heavens. Possibly hinting at humans striving for space travel ( Building motherships, With fleets. I gather that the tower was a device that channeled dark energy to form a blackhole which the humans would use to travel to distant stars and possibly even another galaxy at a reduced time of days.

At some point. This civilization was wiped out. Where a fraction of the population served our creators, Where as the rest fell astray. It was the servants of our creators and our creators themselves that saved portions of humanity.

I'm sure some humans got away in spacecraft during this event. So there are people out there in the galaxy somewhere.
But the ones who were saved were brought up to the surface once the war had been faught and was over. Recolonization of planet Earth occured.

All within this time frame allows hundreds of thousands of years to pass by. Maybe even a million or 2.
But that wasn't the first time Earth has been attacked. It's been attacked several times.
Which is why there is the mythology about the savior. Because it has literally happened over and over, And everytime it has.
The world is now filled with stories of heroes. The idea of the Hero was established off of these very ancient principals of salvation.

People actually have reason to believe in a Hero. Because our ancestors around the world seperated by geography told the same story with different names for the characters.

I don't know if it's so much heaven and hell. But basically if you are left behind. Unless there is a hereditary relative that is picked up it is very unlikely your bloodline will continue. All current bloodlines stem from people who were saved from the invasion. So when it happens again, it isn't going to be any different than the last time.

It's going to be another repeat scenario. Because our enemies are Avian, and like a migration flocking to the feeding grounds they will return and from the reports have been here since the 30s.

The problem with all this tho. Is that Jesus is fairly new, and does not fit in the Heroes Timeline.
As there was no need for a Hero to incarnate at that time.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: IndependentAgent
Science is "correct" and "trustworthy" with the data and evidence we have at present. The fact that it changes when new evidence and analysis presents itself, is what makes our sciences an ever-learning endeavor. Also, remember... science is about probabilities, not proof or facts.

So with the information we have at present, the probability is, the earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old.

ETA: I recommend bookmarking these pages. They have been very helpful to me:
What science is
What science is not


edit on 12/1/2014 by Klassified because: ETA

edit on 12/1/2014 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

How did Chritianity enter this thread? This is in the science section, not religion.

I may have made contributions to religions thread, but I know hot keep the two subjects separate. I am not trying to fuse the two issues like Hugh Ross.


edit on 1-12-2014 by IndependentAgent because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   


The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years


Age of the Earth - Wikipedia

Take a look at that number. Specifically take a look where it says "± 0.05 billion years"

That's Plus or Minus 50,000,000 years. Plus or Minus 50 million years.

Not exactly a pinpoint figure.

As time goes buy, science learns things. One of the things it learns to do is: ask more questions. And when they find the answers to some of those questions, it can cause even more questions, and cause certain theories or knowledge before it to change.

A long time ago they thought everything surrounded the Earth and orbited it.

Quite a bit later, we figured out that no, everything orbit's the sun.

Still much later we discovered galaxies and found that our sun is in orbit around the center of our galaxy and that our galaxy is just one galaxy among a extremely large number of galaxies through out our universe.

So by your logic: we shouldn't believe science on that either, because they keep changing their minds.

Prior to the 1960s, they thought Venus might be a hot tropical type of world, and they just knew Mercury did not rotate anymore on it's axis.

Turns out Venus is a barren wasteland of temps close to 900 deg F and Mercury does indeed rotate on it's axis.

Prior to the 1970's, we were not 100% sure of the mass of Neptune. Voyager flies by it and allows us to refine what it's mass is with precision.

As we learn more things, we are able to revise things that we know. Science is great that way.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join