Navigation
Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.
Recent Comments
- Pim van Meurs on October 26, 2004 10:36 PM
- Neil Johnson on October 26, 2004 05:33 PM
- Salvador T. Cordova on October 26, 2004 04:00 PM
- Pim van Meurs on October 26, 2004 01:10 PM
- Salvador T. Cordova on October 26, 2004 12:32 PM
- Wayne Francis on October 25, 2004 08:55 PM
- simple on October 25, 2004 12:46 PM
- Pierre Stromberg on October 25, 2004 11:58 AM
- Frank J on October 24, 2004 10:25 AM
- Mike Hopkins on October 22, 2004 07:52 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Ed Brayton on October 22, 2004 01:12 PM
Yes, folks, today is the Earth’s 6000th birthday, according to the famous Bishop Ussher. In 1650, he famously calculated the age of the Earth using the biblical timeline based upon the ages at which various people were begat and came up with October 22nd, 4004 BC. At around 6 pm. Technically, the 6000th birthday was actually in 1997, owing to odd lineups in various calenders, but such pedantry would just ruin a good party.
She looks pretty good for 6000, don’t you think? A little bigger around the equator, perhaps. The smog has made her a little more gray around the temples, and global warming a little thinner on top. But all in all, not a bad planet to call home. So raise a glass and sing “For she’s a jolly good planet”, something nobody can deny, and bust out the cake. What do you get for the planet that has everything?
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/572
Comment #9031
Posted by Sean Foley on October 22, 2004 03:06 PM (e) (s)
It is a privileged planet indeed that can spend its six-thousandth birthday in the company of 6.5 billion of its closest friends.
Comment #9032
Posted by steve on October 22, 2004 03:15 PM (e) (s)
The Bush administration, third-world countries wholly without environmental regs, China, India, and everybody else are giving her Hot Flashes. How’s that for a present.
Comment #9033
Posted by Mike Hopkins on October 22, 2004 07:52 PM (e) (s)
Ed,
You need to redo your math.
4004 BC was 6007 years ago.
Don’t feel bad, this is the third time today I have seen incorrect math on this. I have seen a 6008 and another 6000.
——
Anti-spam: Replace “username” with “harlequin2”
Comment #9068
Posted by Frank J on October 24, 2004 10:25 AM (e) (s)
As I wrote on Talk Origins:
Either way, you are both off by more than 6000 years. It was Oct. 21, not 22. And the year was 2004. ;-)
Comment #9092
Posted by Pierre Stromberg on October 25, 2004 11:58 AM (e) (s)
“…How old are you now?”
“…How old are you now…”
Comment #9093
Posted by simple on October 25, 2004 12:46 PM (e) (s)
Does anyone have any baby pictures?
I got one! Here’s a piece of granite that has been radiometrically determined to be 3,200,000,000 years old.
Oh wait, I guess anything we (scientists) find that shows evidence of her younger years must be experimental error.
Or, a product of intelligent design.
Happy Birthday, Earth!
I must say, however, that you certainly appear a lot older than the good bishop says.
Hopefully, you feel the same age as creationists think!
Comment #9100
Posted by Wayne Francis on October 25, 2004 08:55 PM (e) (s)
Ask the greenies and they probably say that from smoking etc the earth probably looks about 10 billion years old.
In my experience it is always best to guess a womans age as 23. Those younger look at it as a compliment that they look more mature, those that are that age accept that age estimate and those older feel special because you say they look youthful.
Gaia isn’t someone you want to mess with….so when you say she looks a certian age make sure you say it with straight face :)
Comment #9119
Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on October 26, 2004 12:32 PM (e) (s)
6,000 years is a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) account of the time involved. It is very young compared to present geological models.
However, even if one can not accept that the Earth is that young on philosophical grounds, one is confronted with some purely empirical challenges to Old Earth.
With the rates of erosion as they are, we would expect the continents to have been recycled every several million years. Kind of trumps all the paleontological data.
Also there is an upheavil in the geological community which the creationists foresaw:
www.mantleplumes.org
Many an Old Earth theory is about to go down, and that website just warms my heart. To add insult to injury, the YECs of Loma Linda/GRI made the cover of the peer reviewed journal Geology in February 2004. :-)
We are finding unracemized and even viable bio-polymers in supposedly 90 to 500 million year old fossils. That does not bode well for trustworthiness of our dating methods.
Further, if the speed of light has decayed (and there is evidential and theoretical support for this), radiometric dates will indicate the Earth is Young.
The Big Bang is as much a POOF scenario as is creationism. Therefore empirically speaking it’s a matter of which POOF is more consistent with the observed data. Young Earth has the edge however because celestial dynamics is not consistent with Solar System Evolution but with instantaneous formation. Essentially, a ready made solar system.
So yes, under the hypothesis of a Young Earth, let us celebrate.
Salvador
Comment #9121
Posted by Pim van Meurs on October 26, 2004 01:10 PM (e) (s)
With the rates of erosion as they are, we would expect the continents to have been recycled every several million years. Kind of trumps all the paleontological data.
Fascinating assertions that are typically so wrong… Will Slavador every learn. The ‘fossil dating’ attempts by some young earth creationists is just plainly an abuse of methods while they ignore the vaste amount of concordant data.
Bait and switch with the change of speed of light is NOT going to serve the YEC’s case either. Big Bang makes predictions and is hardly a poof scenario. YEC is contradicted by most data and supported by few carefully selected samples not by science.
YEC does not deserve by any measure the title of ‘scientific’. That’s the real scientific ‘insult’ my dear friend.
Explain the ‘mantleplume’ upheavil (sic) and the relevance to creationism.
List of relevant resources
List of creationist arguments by Mark Isaak
Creationist arguments for a young earth by Don Lindsay
24 Young earth arguments refuted by Tim Thompson
A radiometric dating resource list by Tim Thompson
Snelling and radiometric dating
Comment #9128
Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on October 26, 2004 04:00 PM (e) (s)
Hiya PvM,
In celebration of the Young Earth’s birthday I present:
The Greatest Thread in ARN History Part I
The Greatest Thread in ARN History Part II
Have a nice Day on this Young Earth,
Salvador
Comment #9132
Posted by Neil Johnson on October 26, 2004 05:33 PM (e) (s)
Gee, Salvador, a laborious rehashing of YE ideas that have been refuted more times than a Bill Clinton claim of faithfulness. Perhaps perpetual motion does exist…
Neil
Comment #9141
Posted by Pim van Meurs on October 26, 2004 10:36 PM (e) (s)
Yes, Salvador is not very original but one must admire his adherence to YECism, despite it being scientifically without much merrit. Sal is my favorite ID proponent, one could not hope for a better voice ;-)
Comment #9030
Posted by Ruidh on October 22, 2004 03:03 PM (e) (s)
On the way home from work, I’m going to stop and buy a bottle of Bishops Finger and raise it to our dear Bishop Ussher.