The University of Waikato - Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato
Faculty of Science and Engineering - Te Mātauranga Pūtaiao me te Pūkaha
Waikato Home Waikato Home > Science & Engineering > BioBlog
Staff + Student Login

why geologists are wrong, wrong, wrong! about the age of the earth

I came across the following diagram on Peter Bowditch's wonderful The Millenium Project. Like him, I hope it's a poe; but nonetheless, I find it has a certain dreadful fascination. Who knew that geologists could get it so wrong?

proving atheists wrong with science.jpg 

| | Comments (8)
Share via Email Share this on Twitter Share this on Google+ Share this on Facebook

8 Comments

Gee does all the water vanish once it goes into people and no water ever come out?

He also left out animals. And plants, bacteria, fungi…

It’s news to me that we drink ocean water, too.

Oh, whatever :-)

It is a well known fact that water in the Mississippi River, by the time it reaches St. Louis, MO, has been through 16.5 toilets. ;-)

And there we have it - the problem at the heart of homeopathy :-)

It would be a bugger if you were the owner of one of those 16 (and a half) toilets. There would be little chance of retrieving anything that dropped into the bowl by mistake.

OK to post this or not. The best response to the author of that screed is "Piss on you!"

At which Harley dealership can I buy the latest Hydrologic Cycle?

You might have to try the 'marine' branch, in which case the jetski version is probably the best option :-)

a)Using coolness of the earth to compute its age with the presumption that the earth would be in molten state:
Using coolness to compute the age of the earth might not be reliable for the fact that its computation has presumed this earth could be in molten state or in other words, it could be in liquid form.
However, the initial stage of earth could be either in solid state that would be fully or partially covered with or without water. The water might be either warm or cold and that I do not like. If the earth would be in solid state that would cover with or without water, it would not take much time for the earth to cool down. Thus, the computation of the age of the earth by means of its coolness would not be feasible since the earth might be in solid state cover with water.
b)Benoit de Maillet (1656-1738), a French anthropologist and diplomat, measured declining sea level and arrived the conclusion that the earth would be 2 billion years.
His computation would not be feasible since sea level could rise as shown in the website address:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-climate-sealevel-idUSBRE8600EG20120701
The rise of sea level has caused his computation of the age of the earth to be unreliable.
c)Radioactive dating method has been used to test the same stratum of rock and yet the same results (within the margin of error) would produce. The reason to explain this is simple. Using the same isotope to test on the same stratum of rock would produce almost the same result due to the same rock would produce the same unstable atomic nucleus of ionizing particles and electromagnetic radiation in spite of its spontaneous emission.
The following is the list of some isotopes that are used for dating:
Parent daughter half-life
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 50 billion years
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.47 billion years
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.3 billion years
Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
Uranium-234 Thorium-230 80,000 years
Carbon-14 Nitrogen-14 5,730 years
Question has to be raised. If all the materials as mentioned above would have been created ever since the beginning of this earth, how could the scientists compute the half life of decay rate for Lead-206 from Uranium-238 to be 4.47 billion years? The reason is simply that the half life of decay rate for, let’s say, Lead-206 from Uranium-238, should be 0 if they would have been created at the same time in the very beginning. As the decay could be 0 if these materials would have been created in the very beginning, how could the Scientists be sure of its reliability and to use it to compute the age of the earth to be billion years?
Besides, even if one material could be the transformation from another, how do the Scientists compute the figure of half life decay rate? For instance, how could the Scientist get 4.47 billion years or not 4 thousand years or others for Uranium-238 to decay to Lead-206? This half year decay rate that has been established by Scientists has pushed the age of the earth and even fossils, i.e. dinosaurs, to billion years. Whenever they use this isotope to test a rock to guess its age, it would give them billion of years since the decay rate has already set by them in the first place to push up to billion years.
Thus, radioactive dating method is rather subjective and not accurate since the half year decay rate is indeed questionable.

Leave a comment

August 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Recent Comments

  • zuma: a)Using coolness of the earth to compute its age with read more
  • Alison Campbell: You might have to try the 'marine' branch, in which read more
  • mark: At which Harley dealership can I buy the latest Hydrologic read more
  • Jim Thomerson: OK to post this or not. The best response to read more
  • herr doktor bimler: It would be a bugger if you were the owner read more
  • Alison Campbell: And there we have it - the problem at the read more
  • Jim Thomerson: It is a well known fact that water in the read more
  • Grant: Gee does all the water vanish once it goes into read more