Saturday, 12 July 2008

The Beginnings Of An Old Earth Model

There have been many attempts to date the age of the Earth. At one extreme Aristotle believed that it was of infinite age, whereas at the other, the modern day young earth creationists claim the earth to be only a few thousand years old. Probably the most famous estimate being that of Bishop James Ussher, who not only came up with a number of years, but also the day and time of “creation”: Sunday 23 October 4004 BCE; just after tea time. He reached this figure by adding up the genealogies of the bible. I have always wondered how he managed to reach that figure as the genealogies of Jesus (found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3) are irreconcilably contradictory, with Luke also adding an additional 15 generations.
A major problem here though, is that it assumes the bible must be true. If the bible is not true, then the foundation of that figure is swept away in a flood of biblical proportions. Proper independent means show this age to be laughably false. Current estimates are that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. This means that the creationists are out by a mere 4 499 993 996 years. The order of magnitude of this error is equivalent to thinking the distance from New York to Los Angeles is only 28 feet.

James Hutton was one of the first to realise that it takes a long time to erode mountains and form new rocks. Perhaps one of his most significant discoveries was the angular unconformity at Siccar point on the Berwickshire coast. An unconformity is a junction between rock depositions that has a significant temporal gap between the layers. An angular unconformity is one where the underlying (older) rocks are tilted at an angle and overlaid with younger more horizontal sediments. In the case of Siccar point, the older Silurian rocks (boxed in red in figure 1a) have been turned on their side by massive tectonic movements. This formed a mountain range as the ancient Iapetus ocean closed, resulting in Scotland and England joining together.

Figure 1a


Older upturned rocks in foreground and on right. Near horizontal younger rocks in distance and on left. In both cases, erosion has exposed the beding planes.


As the Silurian mountains near Siccar eroded and formed the younger Devonian sandstones (boxed in blue above) that now lie on top of the upturned older strata (chunks of the older Silurian rocks can still be seen in the sandstone matrix (See Figure 2)). Hutton reasoned that this would take more than a few thousand years and this work began to challenge the authority of the bible and earned Hutton the title of “father of geology”.
Figure 2


Sediments on the floor of the Iapetus ocean become rocks. These are buckled and turned on their sides as the ocean close, forming fold mountains. These mountains erode and become covered in younger sediments, forming the unconformity.

4 comments:

Lee said...

Hi Billy,

...resulting in Scotland and England joining together.

I bet that pissed off many a Scot :)

Nice post of course.

It is good that the bible got James Ussher thinking about dating the beginning of the Earth (it is points like this that some theists think science has a lot to thank religion for – some people are really that dumb, and very, very wrong.)

The dating method isn’t that important of course; the point is that they should be consistent with other independent techniques.

That is where our YEC friends fail.

Each and every valid method confirms that the Earth is indeed very old – the bible dating technique is based on an assumption that it is correct, that the writing of history is true in the book. No problem with that, if it is true it should be backed up by other independent dating techniques.

Of course, it fails in a huge heap of steaming dung.

However the belief that the bible was true, again, held up the science and discovery in this field. Talking about the bible being wrong wasn’t good for your career (or life) at the time – however I think it is Edmund Halley is sometimes credited to being the first scientist to try and date the age of the Earth by how salty the sea was (though his idea was wrong, it is the thought that counts)

It is from this point in history that the dating of the Earth kicked off I think.

I found some brief lecture notes about the aging of the Earth (from again, a podcast that I listened to some time ago. You can find them here )

Worth a quick read (and listen if you have time, it is a general astronomy course so is at a assessable level for all)

Lee

Billy said...

Thanks for the link Lee, I'll listen to them at home.

I bet that pissed off many a Scot :)


None more so than Mr McGlashan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ub4n8-ojY

I love satirical Scottish stereotypes. Willie is my favorite Simpsons character.

No problem with that, if it is true it should be backed up by other independent dating techniques.


One of the lamest claims I came across (dumped by a theistic shit and runner at RD.net) was that we dont need to bother about geology, genesis and the flood account were written by eye witnesses. I guess thats what they all believe, but it was the first time I came across it put that way.

Edmund Halley is sometimes credited to being the first scientist to try and date the age of the Earth by how salty the sea was (though his idea was wrong, it is the thought that counts)


Fundies still try that one today.

Talking about the bible being wrong wasn’t good for your career (or life) at the time

Yep, Gallileo and Copernicus to name a few (I accidentally, found my self in Copernicus's city and only found out about it later - bummer!)

I like this Quote from Ferdinand Magellan: "The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church"

Amen Brother Lee!

Lee said...

None more so than Mr McGlashan

Excellent – I remember that show – Stoneybridge Olympic committee is one of my favs…

I love satirical Scottish stereotypes.

The English ones are normally crap … no one talks with a posh accent or like they are from Mary Poppins where I’m from.

we dont need to bother about geology, genesis and the flood account were written by eye witnesses

But Adam never wrote a book, and neither did Noah… I think they have a little flaw in their argument.

Fundies still try that one today.

I came across that when I was searching for link I gave.

Didn’t have time to read them – nut jobs I guess

Don’t think Halley wasn’t a fundie as such (well, they all were then I suppose, but he was questioning the bible which is a no-no) it was more a method/reason why the Earth could not be infinitely old, I thought he got a date from his method, but reading the page I gave up it was someone else using his idea.

The point is – his method was wrong anyway, but thinking was good. It was the start of science and the dating of the Earth.

Oh, and your quote reminds me of a the story of the priests at the time of Galileo – one is said to have refused to look through Galileo’s telescope because he knew what he was suppose to see anyway.

See ya

Lee

Lee said...

Thanks for the link Lee, I'll listen to them at home.

No worries, you don’t have to listen to them all, it’s a full lecture course (isn’t the internet great.)

Realised you might have to wander around a little to get the lectures themselves, so here’s the link straight to them.