Where did the Earth come from.docx

8/13/2019 Where did the Earth come from.docx

1/21

Where did the Earth come from?byTracy V. Wilson

A solar nebula is a spinning disc of matter around a new star.

Image courtesyNASA

Philosophers, religious scholars and scientists have lots of ideas on the creation of the universe and the

Earth. Currently, the most prevalent scientific theory, known as the Big Bang Theory, is that the universe

originated in an enormous explosion.

Before the Big Bang, all of the matter and energy now in the universe was contained in a singularity. A

singularity is a point with an extremely high temperature and infinite density. It's also what's found at the

center of ablack hole.This singularity floated in a complete vacuum until it exploded, flinging gas and

energy in all directions. Imagine a bomb going off inside an egg -- matter moved in all directions at high

speeds.

As the gas from the explosion cooled, various physical forces caused particles to stick together. As they

continued to cool, they slowed down and became more organized, eventually growing into stars. This

process took about a billion years.

About five billion years ago, some of this gas and matter became our sun. At first, it was a hot, spinning

cloud of gas that also included heavier elements. As the cloud spun, it collected into a disc called a solar

nebula. Our planet and others probably formed inside this disc. The center of the cloud continued to

condense, eventually igniting and becoming asun.

There's no concrete evidence for exactly how the Earth formed within this nebula. Scientists have two

main theories. Both involve accretion, or the sticking together of molecules and particles:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/tracy-v-wilson-author.htmhttp://www.howstuffworks.com/tracy-v-wilson-author.htmhttp://www.howstuffworks.com/tracy-v-wilson-author.htmhttp://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_IDhttp://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_IDhttp://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_IDhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/black-hole.htmhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/black-hole.htmhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/black-hole.htmhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/sun.htmhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/sun.htmhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/sun.htmhttp://www.howstuffworks.com/share-redirect?type=facebook&cid=152563http://www.howstuffworks.com/share-redirect?type=facebook&cid=152563http://science.howstuffworks.com/sun.htmhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/black-hole.htmhttp://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_IDhttp://www.howstuffworks.com/tracy-v-wilson-author.htm


2/21

1. Similar elements stick together. 2. Heavier particles sink toward the center of the mass. 3. Outgassing creates theplanet's atmosphere.

Homogenous accretion:Similar elements stick together, creating a solid mass. The heat generated in

this process melts the particles. The heavier elements sink to the center because of gravity, creating the

Earth's sold core. Outgassing from this solid body creates the atmosphere.

Heterogeneous accretion:First, particles of metal stick together, creating the Earth's core. Lighter

elements stick to this core as it continues to cool. The gravity of this mass attracts most of the atoms that

make up the atmosphere.

1. Heavier elements collect in the nebula. 2. Lighter particles adhere to this mass.3. The atmosphere comes fromoutgassing and the collection of gaseous particles.

Both of those theories use the same basic idea -- about 4.6 billion years ago, the Earth formed as

particles collected within a giant disc of gas orbiting a star. Once the sun ignited, it blew all of the extra

particles away, leaving the solar system as we know it. The exact process probably included both

homogenous and heterogeneous accretion.

At first, the Earth was very hot and volcanic. A solid crust formed as the planet cooled, and impacts from

asteroids and other debris caused lots of craters. As the planet continued to cool, water filled the basins

that had formed in the surface, creating oceans. Throughearthquakes,volcanic eruptionsand other

factors, the Earth's surface eventually reached the shape that we know today.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question776.htm
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/earthquake.htmhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/earthquake.htmhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/earthquake.htmhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/volcano.htmhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/volcano.htmhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/volcano.htmhttp://www.howstuffworks.com/question776.htmhttp://www.howstuffworks.com/question776.htmhttp://www.howstuffworks.com/question776.htmhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/volcano.htmhttp://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/earthquake.htm


3/21

How Old is the Earth According to the Bible and Science?byRich Deem

INTRODUCTION

The age of the earth has been a topic of debate among Christians over the last twocenturies. Several Christian ministries promote the idea that the earth is less than 10,000years old, which they say comes from the Bible. In reality, the Bible makes no claim as tothe age of the earth, although it does establish a minimum age. This page examines someof the history of the controversywhat the Bible actually says and does not sayandthescientific evidencesurrounding the age of the earth.

Age of the earth according to the Bible

The following is a summary of the biblical evidence presented on this website regarding theage of the earth. For more detailed explanations of each topic, please click on theassociated link.

History of the age of the earth

As indicated earlier, the Bible does not fix the age of the earth, contrary to the claims ofAnswers in Genesis.1Historically, their claim comes from the work of James Ussher, Bishopin the Church of Ireland, from 1625 to 1656. Archbishop Ussher took the genealogies ofGenesis, assuming they were complete, and calculated all the years to arrive at a date forthe creation of the earth on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C.2Of course, even assuming themethod was valid, such an exact date is not possible from the genealogies of the Bible(Ussher assumed all the years the patriarchs lived were exactly 365.25 days long and thatthey all died the day before their next birthday). There are a number of other assumptionsimplicit in the calculation. The first, and foremost, assumption is that the genealogies ofGenesis are complete, from father to son throughout the entire course of human existence.The second assumption is that the Genesis creation "days" were exactly 24-hours in length.It turns out that both assumptions are false.
http://www.godandscience.org/contact.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/contact.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/contact.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#sciencehttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#sciencehttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#sciencehttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n01http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n01http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n02http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n02http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n02https://plus.google.com/105440427757499026037/posts?hl=enhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n02http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n01http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#sciencehttp://www.godandscience.org/contact.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/contact.html


4/21

Incomplete genealogies

Biblical Genealogies

Although Archbishop Ussher assumed the Genesis genealogies were complete, it is clear

from the rest of the Bible that those genealogies were telescoped (some names were leftout for the sake of brevity), which is common in biblical genealogies but rare in moderngenealogies. Similarly, the key genealogical terms (such as "son" and "father") have muchbroader meanings in Hebrew than their corresponding English words. The Hebrew wordtranslated "son" can also have the meaning of "grandson," "great grandson," "descendant,"etc.3Likewise, the Hebrew word translated "father" can mean "grandfather," "greatgrandfather," "ancestor," etc.4An accurate understanding of biblical genealogies is difficult,yet it is important for the understanding of Scripture. Having a proper understanding ofbiblical genealogies is a prerequisite to attempting to address the Genesis genealogies. Bycross referencing the biblical genealogies with other events dated in the Bible, one can findinstances where numerous genealogies were telescoped, resulting in the exclusion ofnumerous generations of individuals. When examining individual genealogies, one can find

examples where individuals are excluded or added to the lists found in Genesis. The factthat the genealogies of the Bible are given symmetrically (where the numbers ofgenerations in each group are identical) lends credence to the argument that they arerepresentative of generations found throughout human history. More information about thebiblical genealogies can be found in our article,The Genesis Genealogies: Are TheyComplete?

Length of creation days

Most people who read English translations of the Bible assume that the English words havethe same meaning as the original languages in which the Bible was written (Hebrew andAramaic for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament). In fact, the original

biblical languages contained many fewer words than modern English, which means that thewords in those languages had more different meanings. In the Genesis 1 creation account,each "day" ends as "evening and morning 'n' day,"5where "n" is the day's number.Although many Christians claim this makes the days exactly 24-hours in length, the Hebrewword translated "day" in English actually has three literal translations; the daylight portionof a 24-hour day, a 24-hour day, and a long, unspecified period of time (as in "day of thedinosaurs").6The Hebrew word translated "evening" also means "sunset," "night" or "endingof the day." The Hebrew word translated "morning" also means "sunrise," "coming of light,""beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage.7Our English
http://www.godandscience.org/images/genealogies.jpghttp://www.godandscience.org/images/genealogies.jpghttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n03http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n03http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n03http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n04http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n04http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n04http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n05http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n05http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n06http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n06http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n07http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n07http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n07http://www.godandscience.org/images/genealogies.jpghttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n07http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n06http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n05http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n04http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n03http://www.godandscience.org/images/genealogies.jpg


5/21


6/21

The seventh day

Besides the biblical evidence that at least some of the Genesis "days" are long periods oftime,Genesis 2:4refers to all 6 days of creation as one day:

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the daythat the Lord God made earth and heaven. (Genesis 2:4)

In addition, the seventh day of Genesis is not closed:

Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from allHis work which God had created and made. (Genesis 2:3)

In all other days the text says, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day." In thebook of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest:

"For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, And God rested on the

seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lestanyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)

By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest from creating has been at least 6,000 yearslong, since it continues to today. God's seventh day of rest from creating will end when Hecreates thenew heavens and new earth.

Age of humanity

Other than incomplete genealogies, there are other measures of the age of humanity foundin the Bible. First, the Bible says that the Lord made a covenant and commanded his law to

1,000 generations:

Remember His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousandgenerations, (1 Chronicles 16:15)

He has remembered His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to athousand generations, (Psalm 105:8)

but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep mycommandments. (Exodus 20:6)

but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep mycommandments. (Deuteronomy 5:10)

Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping hiscovenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep hiscommands. (Deuteronomy 7:9)

Unless those generations are only 6 years long, these verses indicate that humanity hasbeen around much longer than 6,000 years. In most instances, a biblical generation is ~40years long,14meaning that human beings have been around for at least 40,000 years.

Another, less accurate way to look at the age of humanity is to compare an early biblicalevent with earth's natural history. One example is the person Peleg, of whom it is said "forin his days the earth was divided..." (Genesis 10:25)This dividing of the earth was likely a
http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%202.4http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%202.4http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%202.4http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%202.4http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%202.4http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%202.3http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%202.3http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%202.3http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Hebrews%204.4-11http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Hebrews%204.4-11http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Hebrews%204.4-11http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/heaven.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/heaven.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/heaven.htmlhttp://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Chronicles%2016.15http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Chronicles%2016.15http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Chronicles%2016.15http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Psalm%20105.8http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Psalm%20105.8http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Psalm%20105.8http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Exodus%2020.6http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Exodus%2020.6http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Exodus%2020.6http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Deuteronomy%205.10http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Deuteronomy%205.10http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Deuteronomy%205.10http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Deuteronomy%207.9http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Deuteronomy%207.9http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Deuteronomy%207.9http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n14http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n14http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n14http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%2010.25http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%2010.25http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%2010.25http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%2010.25http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n14http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Deuteronomy%207.9http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Deuteronomy%205.10http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Exodus%2020.6http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Psalm%20105.8http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Chronicles%2016.15http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/heaven.htmlhttp://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Hebrews%204.4-11http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%202.3http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%202.4http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%202.4


7/21

result of the removal of land bridges at the end of the last interglacial period, about 12,000years ago. During this time, seal levels rose several hundred feet as continental ice sheetsmelted and flowed into the oceans. Assuming the biblical genealogies were complete, wecould calculate that Peleg lived ~4,000 years ago. However, since the dividing of the earthreally occurred 12,000 years ago, one can determine that the genealogies represent onlyone third of the actual generations (12,000 4,000). This would place the beginning of

humanity at ~24,000 years ago, assuming the missing genealogies are missing at the samerate throughout human history. Since it would seem likely that more of the earliergenealogies are missing, the estimate is likely low, probably being more in line with thebiblical 40,000 years.

From a scientific standpoint, I would place the creation of Adam as the first modernhuman (Homo sapiens sapiens), corresponding with the explosion of sophisticated toolmaking, art, and religious worship in Europe, about 50,000 years ago.15I do not believethat Adam was a Neanderthal, Homo erectus, or other hominid species found in the fossilrecord, but a fully modern, spiritual human being.

Summary of biblical evidence

Contrary to the calculation of Archbishop Ussher, it seems that the biblical genealogies aretelescoped, representing only a small percentage of the actual human generations.Therefore, the time that humanity has existed on earth is in the tens of thousands of yearsrather than thousands of years. However, humanity was the very last of God's creations, onthe sixth days. The days of creation can be shown to be longer than ordinary calendar days,with at least two of the days being years long or longer (in addition to the seventh day,which is a minimum of thousands of years long). So, although the Bible may give us anapproximate date for the creation of human beings, we can only guess at how long theother creation "days" are. However, God has given us another "book" that testifies to Hispower and creative abilitynone other than the creation itself. The Bible explicitly tells usthat God's creation is a reliable witness for the truth about God's power and righteousness.

The Bible also says that one can see the truth about God from His creation, so thatunbelievers are "without excuse" in denying God's "eternal power and divine nature."16So,the Bible says that we can learn about God from His creation. Let's do that!

Age of the earth according to science

Zircon
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n15http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n15http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n15http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n16http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n16http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n16http://www.godandscience.org/images/zircon.jpghttp://www.godandscience.org/images/zircon.jpghttp://www.godandscience.org/images/zircon.jpghttp://www.godandscience.org/images/zircon.jpghttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n16http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n15


8/21

The age of the earth can be measured by numerous different techniques, most of whichprovide just a minimumage. The absolute age of the earth has been most accuratelymeasured through radioactive decay of its rocks. Because of plate tectonics (which recyclesthe earth's crust) and the late heavy bombardment, none of the original rock formationsappear on the surface of the earth at this time. So, the oldest known rock formations havebeen dated to 4.0-4.2 billion years old.17However, tiny zircons, some of the hardest

minerals on earth, have survived these catastrophic events and have been reliably dated to4.4 billion years old.18Rocks returned from the Apollo moon missions,19along withmeteorites derived from Mars20have been dated at 4.5 billion years old. Meteorites from thesolar system that have landed on the earth have been dated to4.56 billion years old,whichestablishes the date at which the solar system and all its worlds were created.

Radioactive decay

Radioactive Table of Elements

There are over 100 elements in the periodic table (right). The properties of each element

are determined by the number of protons and neutrons in each element's atoms. Theatomic number (which defines each element) is a function of the number of protons(positively charged), which is exactly balanced by the number of electrons (negativelycharged). The number of neutrons (each consisting of a proton and electron, being charge-neutral) within each atom is usually about the same as the number of protons, althoughsome elements can exist in different forms (called isotopes) based upon different numbersof neutrons. A fundamental physical law, called the weak nuclear force, determines thestability of atoms that contain differing numbers of neutrons. Some isotopes are somewhator very unstable and decay in a predictable way and at a predictable rate. Depending uponthe isotope, this decay can occur in several different ways. One form of radioactive decayconsists of a neutron decaying into a proton and electron, which is ejected from the nucleus.The atom's atomic number increases by one, so it becomes one element higher on theperiodic table, although its mass remains about the same. In other forms of radioactive

decay, a proton combines with an electron to form a neutron, resulting in its atomic numberdecreasing by one. Still another form of radioactive decay results in the emission of analpha particle (two neutrons and two protons), which lowers the atomic number by 2 andmass by 4. Both the original amount of an element and its decay product(s) can bemeasured to determine the age of the sample.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n17http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n17http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n17http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n18http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n18http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n18http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n19http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n19http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n19http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n20http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n20http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n20http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#meteoriteshttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#meteoriteshttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#meteoriteshttp://www.godandscience.org/images/radiotable.gifhttp://www.godandscience.org/images/radiotable.gifhttp://www.godandscience.org/images/radiotable.gifhttp://www.godandscience.org/images/radiotable.gifhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#meteoriteshttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n20http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n19http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n18http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n17


9/21

Isotopes and the age of the earth

The important thing about radioactive decay is that is provides us with clocks that allow usto determine the ages of various materials on the earth. The stability of a particular isotopedetermines its "half-life," the amount of time required for half of the atoms to decay. Half-

lives of isotopes vary from billions of years (or longer) to fractions of a second. Theexistence of certain isotopes on the earth give us a minimum age for the earth. It issignificant that there are over 150 unstable isotopes, although the vast majority of thosedo notexist naturally on the planet. It turns out that every isotope (other than those whichare products of other radioactive decay or are formed today) with a half-life less than 80million years do not exist.21One could make the claim that maybe God didn't want to createisotopes with "short" half-lives (other than carbon-14). However, the most compellinganswer is that all those isotopes with short half-lives have completely decayed over theearth's 4.5 billion year history. An earth that was only tens of thousands of years old wouldbe expected to contain isotopes with half lives less than thousands of years long. However,there are none, with the exception of carbon-14, which is formed continually in the earth'satmosphere, through the bombardment of atmospheric nitrogen-14 with cosmic rays. Someyoung earth creationists have attempted to get around the radioisotope problem by claiming

that the half-lives of radioactive elements were shorter in the past. However, since the half-lives of radioisotopes vary over many orders of magnitude, this would require that Godwould have had to have changed pre-fall or pre-flood physics to adjust the decay rates ofindividual isotopes more or less compared to others. Needless to say, creationists whopropose such special pleading have never produced any kind of coherent scientific model forhow this contrived idea might have been accomplished. In addition, the Bible tells us thatthe physics of the universe are constant and "fixed,"22suggesting that such special pleadingis incongruent with biblical theology.

Dating of meteorites

Because of the earth's aggressive tectonic activity, it was anticipated that dating of theearth's rocks would yield a minimum, but probably "young" date for the earth. As statedpreviously, the oldest rock formations are just over 4.2 billion years old, while the earth'soldest minerals are 4.4 billion years old. Since the moon has no measureable tectonics, itsoldest rocks date from 4.5 billion years ago. With the assumption that all the solar systembodies were formed at the same time,23scientists have dated meteorites to determine theage of the solar system. Using different isochron methods, the dates for all these meteoritesfall in the same rangefrom 4.5-4.6 billion years ago.

Isochron Dating of Meteorites

Meteorite

Isochron Age (billions of years)

Pb-Pb Sm-Nd Rb-Sr Re-Os Ar-Ar

St. Severin 4.543 0.019 4.55 0.33 4.51 0.15 4.68 0.15

Juvinas 4.556 0.012 4.56 0.08 4.50 0.07
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n21http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n21http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n21http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n22http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n22http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n22http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n23http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n23http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n23http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n24http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n24http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n23http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n22http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n21


10/21

Isochron Dating of Meteorites

Meteorite

Isochron Age (billions of years)

Pb-Pb Sm-Nd Rb-Sr Re-Os Ar-Ar

Allende 4.553 0.004 4.55 0.03

Other dating techniques

Radioactivity is not the only means of measuring the age of the earth, although it does giveus the most accurate measure. However, other techniques allow us to calculatea minimumage for the earth. Below is a table of these techniques, all of which show theearth is much older than 6,000 years.

Techniques for Measuring the Earth's Age

Part of God's Creation

MinimumAge of

the formation

(yrs.)

Age of moon rocks 4.5 billion19

Age of meteorites 4.5 billion24

Accumulation of space dust on the moon (at the measured rate of

about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year)

4.5 billion25

Age of earth rocks 4.2 billion17

Relaxation times of star clusters 4 billion26

Erosion on Mercury Mars, and Moon 4 billion27

Length of days of coral fossils 370 million28

Accumulation of sodium in the oceans 260 million29

Rate of continental drift to form the the Atlantic Ocean 200 million30

Reversals of the earth's magnetic pole recorded in the Atlantic Ocean

sea bottom

80 million31

Erosion of the Grand Canyon 17 million32
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n24http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n19http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n19http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n19http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n24http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n24http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n24http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n25http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n25http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n25http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n17http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n17http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n17http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n26http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n26http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n27http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n27http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n28http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n28http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n29http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n29http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n30http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n30http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n31http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n31http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n31http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n32http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n32http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n32http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n32http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n31http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n30http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n29http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n28http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n27http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n26http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n17http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n25http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n24http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n19http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n24


11/21



MinimumAge of

the formation

(yrs.)

Geometric measurement to the galaxy NGC4258 23.5 million33

Carbonate deposits: The Great Bahama Bank, off the coast of Florida,

has multiple layers over 14,500 feet thick

12.4 million34

There are sedimentary rock formations on Mars that are over 4

kilometers thick. Such layers would require tens to hundreds of

millions of years of running water to form. In addition there must have

been millions of years for all the water to have disappeared, since

Mars is now extremely dry. (View pictures from the article)

10 million35

Ooids (small spheroidal bodies): Formation for adding many layers of

mineral deposits involves massive time elements.

>7 million36

The Green River annual layers (alternating Summer calcium

carbonate and Winter organic layers)

4 million37

Geometric measurement to the galaxy M33 2.4 million38

Evaporites: When bodies of salt water are trapped so that circulation

is limited, evaporation produces precipitation of calcium carbonate,

then calcium sulfate and finally calcium chloride out of the water. Each

layer takes several years to form. The Delaware Basin formation is

1,400 feet thick, consisting of 200,000 layers, requiring at least

600,000 years to form. The Mediterranean Sea floor is underlain by

about 7,000 feet of evaporites, requiring millions of years to form and

evaporation of a 60 miles depth of salt water.

>3 million39

Length of time that surface rocks have been exposed to cosmic rays

(Antarctic rocks)

3 million40

Huge stalactites, stalagmites, and columns in the Carlsbad Caverns inNew Mexico (Carlsbad reference)

500,000

41

Vostok ice core in Antarctica 420,00042

Thickness of coral reefs 130,00043
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n33http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n33http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n34http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n34http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol290/issue5498/images/medium/se4709045003.gifhttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol290/issue5498/images/medium/se4709045003.gifhttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol290/issue5498/images/medium/se4709045003.gifhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n35http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n35http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n35http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n36http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n36http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n37http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n37http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n37http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n38http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n38http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n39http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n39http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n40http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n40http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n40http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n41http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n41http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n42http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n42http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n43http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n43http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n43http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n42http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n41http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n40http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n39http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n38http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n37http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n36http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n35http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol290/issue5498/images/medium/se4709045003.gifhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n34http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n33


12/21



MinimumAge of

the formation

(yrs.)

Organic banks (The Capitan Reef of West Texas, 2,000 feet thick in

places, with fossilized remains of organisms.)

100,00044

Radiocarbon dating of wood (upper limit of 14C dating method) 50,00045

Bristlecone pine trees in California 11,00046

Dolomite formation: Replacement of calcium carbonate particlesin lime sediment or lime rock gives strong evidence of vastamounts of time required. Rate is as slow as 200 million

years/mm.

millions47

CONCLUSION

The Bible establishes a minimum date for the creation of human beings on the sixth "day" of~50,000 years ago. However, because the Bible clearly indicates the length of the previousfive creation "days," are longer than ordinary solar days, we must look to God's creation toestablish an accurate date for the length of the days and the age of the earth. The age ofthe earth is most accurately established by examining the age of its rocks, along with theage of rocks from the moon and meteorites, which were formed around the same time. Allthese measurements indicate that the earth is just over 4.5 billion years old. Measurement

of the ages of some of earth's features establish a minimum age for those features that is inthe hundred of thousands to millions of years. Since most of the measurement merelyinvolve the counting of annual layers, they are unlikely to be grossly inaccurate. Therefore,the young earth paradigm that the earth is merely 6,000 years old is falsified by both theBible and science. The vast ages of the earth does not diminish the power and glory of God,but establishes that God thought that preparing the earth for human habitation was worththebillions of years of preparation.Since God is not subject to the temporal dimension ofthis universe,48it all happened "instantly" for Him.

"But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you; And the birds of the heavens, and let

them tell you. "Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you; And let the fish of the sea

declare to you. "Who among all these does not know That the hand of the LORD has donethis, In whose hand is the life of every living thing, And the breath of all mankind? "Does

not the ear test words, As the palate tastes its food? (Job 12:7-11)

Cuntos Aos Tiene La Tierra Segn La Biblia Y La Ciencia?

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n44http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n44http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n45http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n45http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n46http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n46http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n47http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n47http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_six_days.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_six_days.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_six_days.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n48http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n48http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n48http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Job%2012.7-11http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Job%2012.7-11http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Job%2012.7-11http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth-es.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth-es.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth-es.htmlhttp://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Job%2012.7-11http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n48http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_six_days.htmlhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n47http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n46http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n45http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html#n44


13/21

When Did Life on Earth Begin? Ask a Rock

GeologyPosted:

10/14/02Author: DavidTenenbaum

Summary:Some ofthe oldest rocks onEarth, found inGreenland, holdimportant clues tolife's beginnings. Theproblem is, expertsdisagree both abouthow to interpret theclues and about howold the rocks reallyare.

When Did Life on Earth Begin? Ask aRock.

Does the first evidence of life date to 3.85 billion years

ago (Ga), or 3.65 Ga? A 200-million-years discrepancy

may seem trivial almost 4 billion years after the fact. And

yet scientists continue to debate whether some of the

oldest rocks ever found date to 3.85 Ga, or "just" 3.65

Ga.

The discrepancy matters because the rocks, however old

they are, indicate that life already existed at the time they

formed. The dispute is not just a matter of how early life

began, however, but under what conditions: The earlier

date was during the tail end of an asteroid storm called

the "late heavy bombardment," while the later date was

after the bombardment ceased.

For astrobiology, the issue could hardly have greater

weight. What conditions allowed life to emerge? How

quickly after the planet coalesced from primordial dust

and gas did chemicals organize themselves into self-

replicating, evolving systems -- into life? And what evidence of that early life would remain after billions of

years?

Generalized geologic map showing extent ofearly Archean (3770 3900 c) Itsaq GneissComplex in southern West Greenland(adapted from Nutman et al., 1984, 1996).Oldest sedimentary rocks and associatedgneisses are along coast, represented by

island of Akilia, and are intruded in places byProterozoic Qorqut granites.Credit: GSA Today
http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_exclusive&task=addToFav&id=293http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/http://www.astrobio.net/includes/html_to_doc_execute.php?id=293&component=newshttp://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_exclusive&task=addToFav&id=293http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/http://www.astrobio.net/includes/html_to_doc_execute.php?id=293&component=newshttp://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_exclusive&task=addToFav&id=293http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/http://www.astrobio.net/includes/html_to_doc_execute.php?id=293&component=newshttp://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_exclusive&task=addToFav&id=293http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/http://www.astrobio.net/includes/html_to_doc_execute.php?id=293&component=newshttp://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_exclusive&task=addToFav&id=293http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/http://www.astrobio.net/includes/html_to_doc_execute.php?id=293&component=newshttp://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_exclusive&task=addToFav&id=293http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/http://www.astrobio.net/includes/html_to_doc_execute.php?id=293&component=newshttp://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/


14/21

The debate concerns samples of graphite - a form of carbon used in pencil leads -- from the snowy,

barren wastes of western Greenland. In 1979, German geologistManfred Schidlowskifirst argued that

ratios of carbon isotopes from the rocks were a relic of organic matter. The issue has been contested with

renewed vigor since 1996, whenStephen Mojzsis,a geologist at theUniversity of Colorado,published a

study of microscopic samples of carbon from the same area.

The samples were found in black, fine-grained, highly deformed rocks that started out as ocean-floor

sediments. Marine sediments receive a continual rain of matter - both organic and inorganic -- from the

water, so they are a good place to look for the remains of past life.

The debate over the sediments has two parts: What is the evidence for

life? And how old are the rocks containing it?

Rocks of this age are not likely to contain conventional fossils -- to

date, the oldest undisputed fossils appear in rocks from 3.2 Ga. Fossils

in older rocks would have long since been destroyed by eons of heat,

pressure and deformation. In searching for the oldest life, Mojzsis

observes, "you have to look to the chemical record, on the principle

that life changes the chemistry of its surroundings in a predictable

way."

The chemical record of ancient life, found in so-called "chemofossils,"

is reflected in the ratio of isotopes, withcarbonbeing particularly useful. Carbon exists in nature in more

than one form. Normally, carbon-13 (C-13, with atomic weight 13), is much rarer than C-12. However,

biological processes concentrate C-12, so when organic debris falls to the ocean floor, the C-12 to C-13

ratio rises still further in the sedimentary rock that forms. That ratio is preserved even in rocks that formed

billions of years ago.

The percentage differences are small, but distinctive, saysCraig Manning,a geologist at theUniversity of

California at Los Angeles."In the modern world, the only way you can generate such a high ratio of

carbon-12 relative to carbon-13 is if some sort of fractionation [or preferential use of carbon-12] occurs in

living organisms."

Aerial photograph of BIFlocality on Akilia, looking east;sediments are bounded byamphibolites and intruded bygneissic sheets up to 3850million years old.Credit: GSA Today
http://www.biograph.comstar.ru/bank/schidlow.htmhttp://www.biograph.comstar.ru/bank/schidlow.htmhttp://www.biograph.comstar.ru/bank/schidlow.htmhttp://spot.colorado.edu/~mojzsis/http://spot.colorado.edu/~mojzsis/http://spot.colorado.edu/~mojzsis/http://www.colorado.edu/http://www.colorado.edu/http://www.colorado.edu/http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/modules/carbon/carbon1.htmlhttp://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/modules/carbon/carbon1.htmlhttp://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/modules/carbon/carbon1.htmlhttp://www.ess.ucla.edu/faculty/manning/http://www.ess.ucla.edu/faculty/manning/http://www.ess.ucla.edu/faculty/manning/http://www.ucla.edu/http://www.ucla.edu/http://www.ucla.edu/http://www.ucla.edu/http://www.ucla.edu/http://www.ucla.edu/http://www.ess.ucla.edu/faculty/manning/http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/modules/carbon/carbon1.htmlhttp://www.colorado.edu/http://spot.colorado.edu/~mojzsis/http://www.biograph.comstar.ru/bank/schidlow.htm


15/21

Manning, who helped map Akilia Island, Greenland, where the possible

3.85 Ga sediments were found, says ancient life is "the simplest

explanation" for their carbon ratios.

The isotopic evidence may be ancient and subtle, but it's convincingtoJohn Valley,a professor of geology at theUniversity of Wisconsin-

Madisonwho has a lot of experience dating ancient rocks. High C-12

to C-13 ratios, he says, "when present in sufficient quantity, are very

strong evidence of organic activity, although I don't use the word

'proof.'"

But do the rocks that held the carbon really date to 3.85 Ga? Rock of

sedimentary origin cannot be dated directly. However, it's possible to

deduce a minimum age by dating any igneous "intrusions" that have

cut through the sedimentary rock. These intrusions can be dated by

the presence within them of crystals calledzircons.And because the

intrusions were deposited after the sedimentary rock, knowing the age

of the zircons gives a minimum age of the sedimentary rock.

Geochronologists depend on zircons. Mojzsis, for example, calls them

"nature's timekeepers." Zircons crystallize from molten igneous rock as

it cools. When they first crystallize, zircons containuranium,a

radioactive element that slowly decays to lead. But until the decay

process begins, lead is absent. Because all the lead they now contain originally must have been uranium,

the ratio of uranium to lead reflects the time since the zircons formed - since the igneous rock cooled.

Thomas Krogh, who helped develop the uranium-lead zircon dating method at theRoyal Ontario

Museumin Toronto, says that even if the zircons are reheated, as happened at least once to the

Greenland samples, they retain a "memory" of the first crystallization. Even more than 3.5 billion years

later, uranium-lead dating is accurate to within a few million years, Krogh adds.

But because the Greenland rocks were severely deformed during billions of years of geologic turmoil, their

age sequence - which rocks were laid down first, which later? - is confusing. Obviously, accurate zircon

dating can help determine the age of the sedimentary rocks only if the age relationship of the various

rocks is known accurately.

Microscopic view of a zirconcrystal determined to be 4.4billion years old making it theworld's oldest known terrestrial

material. Zircon is a mineralcommonly used to determine thegeological age of rocks.Chemical analysis of this grainsuggests that the Earth was coolenough to have water, ahydrospehere and, possibly, lifemuch earlier than previouslythought.Credit: John W. Valley
http://www.news.wisc.edu/newsphotos/images/Valley_John_hs01_2618.JPGhttp://www.news.wisc.edu/newsphotos/images/Valley_John_hs01_2618.JPGhttp://www.news.wisc.edu/newsphotos/images/Valley_John_hs01_2618.JPGhttp://www.wisc.edu/http://www.wisc.edu/http://www.wisc.edu/http://www.wisc.edu/http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/zircon/zircon.htmhttp://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/zircon/zircon.htmhttp://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/zircon/zircon.htmhttp://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/uranium.htmlhttp://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/uranium.htmlhttp://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/uranium.htmlhttp://www.rom.on.ca/http://www.rom.on.ca/http://www.rom.on.ca/http://www.rom.on.ca/http://www.rom.on.ca/http://www.rom.on.ca/http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/uranium.htmlhttp://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/zircon/zircon.htmhttp://www.wisc.edu/http://www.wisc.edu/http://www.news.wisc.edu/newsphotos/images/Valley_John_hs01_2618.JPG


16/21

During summer, 2000, Manning, Mojzsis andMark Harrisonof UCLA

performed a detailed survey of Akilia Island. "All the previous claims

were based on an old kind of mapping," Manning says. "You [can't] just stand there with notebook and

sketch what you see. Given the magnitude of the claims, it was extremely important to lay out a grid and

map at more detailed scale."

After two weeks of mapping, he says, "We did discover a good crosscutting relationship" among the rocks.

The 3.85 Ga figure, he adds, "is indisputable, as far as we're concerned." This new research has been

submitted for publication.

While Manning, Mojzsis and Krogh all think the 3.85 Ga age is correct,Stephen Moorbath,a geologist

atOxford Universitycontends that the rocks were most likely deposited about 3.65 to 3.70 Ga. This more

recent dating would explain the absence of the element iridium - rare on Earth but common in asteroids -

or any other signs of asteroid impacts, such as surface turbulence.

Due to the paucity of evidence, the detailed interpretation of life from ancient samples may always remain

controversial, yet the very existence of samples moves the discussion of ancient life from the realm of

speculation and theory into the realm of experimentation. In other words, says Mojzsis, it enters the realm

of science.

"The geological record of Earth is the baseline from which we can investigate evidence of past

environments on any other planet. On Earth, we call a spacecraft a Toyota Land Cruiser, and a sample

return mission can return hundreds of kilograms to the world's best labs."

Ancient zircons, he adds, "are intrinsically exciting because they help us understand the early Earth.

These studies provide an important feature for any scientific discussion: data."

A rock sample from Akilia Islandoff the coast of Greenland.Credit: CNN

http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/

Ever Ask Yourself, How Did Life Begin?

Science has long sought answers to several important questions: What is life? Where did it come

from? How did it begin? You won't the answers by peering into a microscope, telescope or test tube.

Millions of species share this planet. But only man has tried to understand the world and universearound him. Only man continues to search for the origin and meaning of life.

Clearly what sets us apart from all other living creatures on earth are the abilities and power of the

human mind. It drives us to want to understand.

Some people's desire to understand life is made evident in religion by cathedrals, temples and churches.

Others look to science in their search for meaning and gaze through microscopes, build particle

accelerators and send space probes to neighboring planets in search of life and its origins.
http://www.ess.ucla.edu/faculty/harrison/http://www.ess.ucla.edu/faculty/harrison/http://www.ess.ucla.edu/faculty/harrison/http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/staff/staffinfo.php3?name=stephenmhttp://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/staff/staffinfo.php3?name=stephenmhttp://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/staff/staffinfo.php3?name=stephenmhttp://www.ox.ac.uk/http://www.ox.ac.uk/http://www.ox.ac.uk/http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/http://www.ox.ac.uk/http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/staff/staffinfo.php3?name=stephenmhttp://www.ess.ucla.edu/faculty/harrison/


17/21

When all is said and done, history has shown that, whether in religion or science, man's foundational

curiosity has to do with the basics of life. What is life? How did life begin? How did it get here? What is

the meaning of life?

Science and creation

When we consider the quest for the understanding of the universe and life within it, one of the greatminds of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, comes to the fore. Although he studied physics rather than

biology, Einstein was intrigued by the question of human origins and the existence of the universe. He

recognized the evidence for an intelligence behind the functioning of the cosmos and the existence of

life.

After years of study into the structure and origin of the universe, he acknowledged that "the harmony of

natural law" he saw in the laws of physics "reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared

with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection" (The

Quotable Einstein, Alice Calaprice, editor, 1996, p. 151).

Some would say Albert Einstein, in spite of such a profound admission, was not thinking of a biblical or

personal God when he spoke of this superior intelligence. But Einstein never had the opportunity toconsider many of the aspects of the growing body of evidence for cosmic fine-tuning and design that

cosmologists have discovered in recent decades. Discoveries about the beginnings of the universe point

to a beginning, a "first cause," that many cosmologists claim is the most likely explanation for the origin

of all things.

The "intelligent design" movement

According to the Darwinist model of evolution, undirected natural causes are responsible for the origin

and development of life. Because Darwinist evolution is based solely on random genetic mutation, it

precludes the possibility of a supernatural Creator or any guiding intelligence playing a role in life's

development.

In spite of the incredible level of acceptance of Darwinism and evolution over the decades, however,

there have always been some dissenters who rejected Charles Darwin's claim that undirected natural

causes could not only produce life but be responsible for the countless species and forms of life we see

today.

Until the mid-1980s these other voices were largely isolated and sporadic. More recently these growing

voicescategorized as the "intelligent design" movementhave become more focused in their pointed

criticisms of Darwinist evolution. Many attempt to overturn the cultural dominance of Darwinism in

both social and academic circles. Without employing the Bible as a scientific text, many intelligent-

design scientists and scholars, including authors such as Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Charles Thaxton,

Michael Denton and Stephen Meyer, have critiqued Darwinism on scientific and philosophical grounds.

What, then, is intelligent design?

It is a theory of our origins that begins with the observation that intelligent causes can accomplish things

that undirected natural causes simply cannot. This is true of the design or development of both

inanimate and living things.

Consider the word game of Scrabble as an example. Let's grant that the board and letter pieces exist. Try

tossing them into the air and see how they land. You certainly wouldn't expect all the letters to land in


18/21


19/21

Miller's work served as the sole pillar on which chemical evolutionists built their theories. Today,

however, many scientists have concluded that the early atmosphere was vastly different from that of

Miller's experiments and that he was operating under fundamentally wrong assumptions.

Further, in almost five decades little progress has been made to indicate that such simulated primordial

oceans or organic-soup experiments yield anything more than a few inanimate proteins or amino acids

without any other characteristics of life. Among other things they are missing the all-importantinformational macromolecules that exist in all forms of life, the molecules that carry the

vital information, or software, that defines life, its very nature and its functions.

Some evolutionists have recognized the difficulties of explaining the spontaneous beginning of all of the

necessary chemical components to life. They observe the high degree of complexity of present life-

forms and admit the seemingly impossible task of offering a plausible explanation. However, since life is

present on Earth, and science demands some sort of mechanistic explanation for its existence, they

continue to search for theories that will satisfy the scientific method.

The fifth miracle

In 1999 theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Australia's University of Adelaide wrote The FifthMiracle to address the definition and origins of life. In his book Professor Davies cited new research

that he claimed hints that the beginnings of life may have lain deep within the earth's hot crust rather

than the "warm pond" suggested by Darwin.

The "fifth miracle" of Davies' title refers to Genesis 1:11: "Let the land produce vegetation" (New

International Version), implying the first four biblical miracles are the creation of the universe, light, the

firmament and dry land. Even though Davies disavows the notion that life is the result of a miracle from

a Creator God, he admits that the actual beginning of life is the most unsolvable mystery of science.

Professor Davies recounts how the work of Louis Pasteur in the 1860s led to the scientific realization

that only living organisms could beget other living organisms. Pasteur's research and findings essentially

debunked the concept of spontaneous generation, that life could arise spontaneously from nonlivingmatter.

Davies states: "Important though this demonstration was, Pasteur's conclusion came into direct conflict

with Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin's celebrated tome On the Origin of Species, which had

been published just three years before Pasteur's experiments, sought to discredit the need for God to

create the species by showing how one species can transmute into another. But Darwin's account left

open the problem of how thefi rs tliving thing came to exist" (1999, p. 83, emphasis in original).

So we are left with the fact that, unless life had always existed, at least one speciesthe firstcould

not have come into existence by transmutation from another species, but only by spontaneous

generation from nonliving matter, a concept that Pasteur's work disproved.

Darwin himself wrote a few years later: "I have met with no evidence that seems in the least

trustworthy, in favor of so-called Spontaneous Generation" (ibid.). Yet, as Davies continues: "... In the

absence of a miracle, life could have originated onlyby some sort of spontaneous generation. Darwin's

theory of evolution and Pasteur's theory that only life begets life cannot both have been completely

right" (ibid.).

Man cannot explain it


20/21

Davies' book, although citing much of the current research in early-life origins (microbes around volcanic

vents in the ocean's floor) and striving to offer explanations of how life came to be, is actually a work

filled with admissions that science simply does not have the answer as to howlife began. "Science

rejects true miracles," he writes. "Although biogenesis strikes many as virtually miraculous, the starting

point of any scientific investigation must be the assumption that life emerged naturally, via a sequence

of normal physical processes. It is very unlikely that we will ever find out exactly what happened ..." (pp.

81-82).

One of the greatest challenges to scientists, and the focus of much of modern research into life's origins,

is the key issue ofinformation.For life to exist, information-software, as it weremust have existed in

those initial proteins and amino acids.

That is what scientists simply cannot explain and what random selection cannot reproduce. Professor

Davies admits: "In a living organism we see the power of software, or information processing, refined to

an incredible degree ... The problem of the origin of life reduces to one of understanding how encoded

software emerged spontaneously from hardware. How did it happen? How did nature 'go digital'? ... It is

like trying to explain how a kite can evolve into a radio-controlled aircraft. Can the laws of nature as we

presently comprehend them account for such a transition? I do not believe they can"(p. 115,emphasis added).

Clearly, the argument that Davies and other representative viewers of modern science seem to be

making is that we need to discover and understand some fundamentally new variable that is beyond

both chance and law.

In spite of the lack of answers for the origin of life that are forthcoming from the known laws of physics,

mathematics and biochemistry, humanity seems bent on considering only answers from modern

scienceanswers that do not allow for a Creator. The concept of an intelligent force operating in the

history of life is seen by scientific materialists as some sort of magic on a cosmic scale.

The impact of modern science

Modern science, with all its achievements, continues to evolve its very research methods and

definitions. A problem is that "science" has two distinct definitions in our culture.

On the one hand, science refers to a method of investigation involving exacting measurements,

repeatable experiments and an open-minded attitude that insists that all claims be carefully tested. But

science has also become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism.

This definition of science insists that nature (the natural, physical cosmos) is all there is, or at least the

only thing about which we can have any knowledge. The conclusion follows that nature had to do its

own creating, that the means of creation must not have included any role for a Creator. Students are not

supposed to approach this philosophy with open-minded skepticismas they are told to do in any other

scientific endeavor

but, ironically enough, to take it on faith (although they would never use that

religioussounding term).

The reason that neo-Darwinism and natural selection in evolution are so blindly accepted in the

academic world is that they are the main scientific props for scientific naturalism. Students first are

taught that evolution is fact, then they gradually learn more about what that fact means.


21/21

The same principle is true in the search for the origin of life. When one assumes that all living things are

the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection and random variation,

God is excluded from the picture. Humans (along with all life) thus are the accidental product of a

purposeless universe.

The only alternative

Many people claim to see a huge difference between the revelations of the Bible and the factual

findings of science. That view has caused many simply to disregard the Bible when they consider the

quest to understand the origins of life and its meaning.

Some 2,000 years ago the apostle Paul addressed the world's alleged wisdom and knowledge about such

fundamental questions. He stated the obvious: that God has shown proof of Himself to man: "For what

can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them" (Romans 1:19, New

Revised Standard Version).

Here Paul acknowledges a truth that mankind has taken thousands of years to discover in secular,

scientific researchthat realities about God and His part in the creation of life and the universe should

be and are indeed evident to those willing to see.

He tells us that, for all of man's efforts to understand how life could have originated, proof of a Creator

(an intelligent designer, as many scientists are discovering) has been in front of us all along: "For since

the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that

are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (verse 20).

Yet, as was true in first-century Rome, so it is true today: Mankind simply refuses to acknowledge the

need for the Creator. Of the educated elite of his time Paul noted that, "even as they did not like to

retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind ..." (verse 28).

Later Paul prophesied that modern man would depart from acknowledging and accepting the role of the

Creator God: "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers ofthemselves,... having a form of godliness but denying its power" (2 Timothy 3:1, 5).

While the most fundamental questions of sciencewhat is life and where did it come fromcontinue

to perplex the best minds of secular science, God reveals that He not only has the answers to the initial

question of life's origin but the solution to the profound question of life's purpose.

Whether we understand the purpose for human life or not, the Bible promises that "the glory of the

LORD will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken"

(Isaiah 40:5, NIV). In due time this will come to pass.

The Bible is silent on the scientific, chemical and biological origins of life. Why? Because it reveals

that all life was created by God. This answer to the ultimate question of modern science is rejectedby most, but the time will come when all will understand!

http://www.thewordout.net/pages/page.asp?page_id=90459
http://www.thewordout.net/pages/page.asp?page_id=90459http://www.thewordout.net/pages/page.asp?page_id=90459http://www.thewordout.net/pages/page.asp?page_id=90459

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dikoalam
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Where did the Earth come from.docx

Documents