The Age of the Earth

Your education is has a hole in it.

Science makes powerful successful predictions about future observations based on the Theory of Evolution and these work. That is why the only people not to accept it are those who accept the excessively literal interpretation of ancient religious texts, and is why they are objectively unwise to do so.

Age of the Earth? I'm guided by the best informed professionals in the field, so 4.54 billion years, give or take a margin of error. You might read some of these but I won't hold my breath!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/?redirect=1

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/

One of the things that strikes me about many science-skeptics is their lack of consistency. They do their best to trash well founded theories regarding the age of the Earth or evolution of species but when they become ill, they don't hesitate to take the treatment (antibiotic for example) prescribed for them.

Don't they understand that medicine is a branch of science & treatments are assessed by the same methodology of observation, forming of hypotheses & experimentation that's also applied to questions such as the age of the planet?

If you distrust one process so completely, why trust the other for arriving at a reliable conclusion?

I think the question of how old the Earth is has to precede any discussion of evolution, simply due to the fact that evolution needs many millions of years to take effect.

How much investigation of your own have you done on this subject? And how much reading have you done on non-creationist websites?

As I understand things, the recession (moving away) of the Moon is caused largely by tidal drag, causing a transfer of momentum between Moon & Earth. But this tidal effect depends on the distribution of oceans on Earth & we know this has changed greatly over geological time.

It's well established that during a large slice of Earth's history only one continent existed & this would have had a large effect on tidal drag, causing the rate at which the Moon receded to be substantially slower. It's very probable that the rate at which the Moon is receding today is much faster than it's been throughout geological history.

The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 10^10 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Recession_of_the_Moon

"Young earth creationists (YECs) often claim that the recession of the moon, at its current rate of recession (how fast it moves away from the Earth), would have been too close to the Earth to survive at some point in its scientifically accepted 4.5 billion year lifespan, which indicates a young universe.

Some of these claims may stem from early scientific confusion. For example, Slichter 1963 (using a simpler Earth-moon model) found that the Moon couldn't have receded from Earth for more than 1.4–2.3 billion years. Later research in the 1970-80s (discussed below) improved this model and found that recession could indeed have occurred for 4.5 bn years. Yet even the very first version of this argument, by Thomas Barnes in 1982, ignored this relevant research, preceding to cite Slichter. And creationists, over 30 years on, still claim scientific failure. If so little research is done on this relatively simple subject, creationist scientific honesty in general is seriously undermined.

Ultimately, research shows that the recession of the moon is not inconsistent with a 4.5 bn year age."

Why? In fact it's a perfectly good source but the quote I posted was from rational Wiki which isn't the same thing. However, that summary explains the situation perfectly well.

I would defy anybody to produce a more reliable source for general information, (on pretty much every topic imaginable) than Wikipedia. 

(Wikipedia of course was not used in Stephens post)

Okay I have a question on this.

I followed the link and if gave a puzzling sentence: Earth, in turn, causes much greater tides in the moon.

How can there be tides on the moon, if it has no water?

That is messing my head up.

And again the moon recession thing is moot.

Because as I pointed out earlier, until young Earthers can somehow figure out a way to squeeze 150 million galaxies, into a sphere 6000 light years in radius, then they have no model.

And they remain just another internet conspiracy theory.

it is much larger, yes.

in fact, the observable Universe alone is over 13B light years in radius. 

That is because that is as far as light has been able to travel, in the time that the Universe has been around.

In another billion years, that radius will extend yet another billion light years.

Who can say what will be visible then?

Such websites stand or fall by the accuracy of their content. If information on pages was being corrupted in the way you suggest, those running the site would act to correct it.

You've got me there - I didn't follow the link. I can only suppose it's a reference to a 'tidal effect'? That's to say, despite having no surface water, a similar but greater force is imposed on the Moon.

You really have been badly misled. Wikipedia provides a good review of scientific knowledge by hundreds or thousands of contributors looking for source material, on pretty much any topic in science you can think of.

As for the quality of the summary articles, this is maintained by wikipedia editors enthusiastically ensuring other contributors stick to the detailed guidance for editors that it is required to comply with.

The net result: as early as 2005 Nature determined that Wikipedia had accuracy for scientific articles similar to those written by leading experts in the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica, but more up to date, probably more accurate now. (Regarding the comparison Physics Nobel prize winner Richard Feynman said Encyclopedia Britannica was a big favourite of his for enhancing his education when he was young. If Wikipedia had existed then, there is little doubt he would have been as avid a reader of that). There have been many other studies since with similar results: see the list of references in the link above.

I need to slightly correct you here.

Rather those contributing to Wikipedia have produced and revised a detailed set of guidelines with the central aims in mind to achieve the highest quality possible. The general principles were laid out, but even these have been revised due to common assent  - one that springs to mind is that the founder of the site, Jimmy Wales, originally had the view that "petty" topic articles were not appropriate, and he gave the example of an article on an individual song. Do a search now, and you will find that this view did not persist.

In brief the way it works to correct vandalism is that when any edit occurs to any page, typically all those who have edited it before and who are active on Wikipedia will get a change alert which allows them to see the precise change made in a clear way. All of them have the option to revert that change with a brief explanation if it is inappropriate. Vandalism is the very easiest thing to deal with, requiring only a couple of seconds by one of hundreds of editors.

There are a number of rules that mean that if an account is associated with vandalism it will lose editing rights and if repeated will be close.

Thanks for the 'elaboration' but I'm not clear how that corrects what I posted?

Maybe I gave the impression that by "those running the site would act to correct it", I had in mind the higher management? I meant only that broad selection of editors who take responsibility for detecting & correcting errors.

Since it's been mentioned a couple of times in support of the young earth argument that the oldest living tree on Earth is some 6000 years old, I thought it might be useful to shed a little light on the usefulness of trees in dating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

"Dendrochronology (or tree-ring dating) is the scientific method of dating tree rings (also called growth rings) to the exact year they were formed. As well as dating them this can give data for dendroclimatology, the study of climate and atmospheric conditions during different periods in history from wood.

Dendrochronology is useful for determining the precise age of samples, especially those that are too recent for radiocarbon dating, which always produces a range rather than an exact date, to be very accurate. However, for a precise date of the death of the tree a full sample to the edge is needed, which most trimmed timber will not provide. It also gives data on the timing of events and rates of change in the environment (most prominently climate) and also in wood found in archaeology or works of art and architecture, such as old panel paintings. It is also used as a check in radiocarbon dating to calibrate radiocarbon ages.^[1]

New growth in trees occurs in a layer of cells near the bark. A tree's growth rate changes in a predictable pattern throughout the year in response to seasonal climate changes, resulting in visible growth rings. Each ring marks a complete cycle of seasons, or one year, in the tree's life.^[1] As of 2013, the oldest tree-ring measurements in the Northern Hemisphere are a floating sequence extending from about 12,580 to 13,900 years"

So by that method alone we can date samples accurately to almost 14000 years ago!

And that technique helps to authenticate the Carbon 14 dating method which enables samples to be dated as far back as 40,000 years.