Gertrude Gill, 32 years old
The widely accepted age of the universe is currently However, no scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here that strongly suggest that these accepted ages are in serious error. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed. There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to earth dating theories this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now. And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all see below.
The age of the Earth is estimated to be 4. Following the development of radiometric age-dating in the early 20th century, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that earth dating theories were in excess of a billion years old. It is hypothesised that the accretion of Earth began soon after the formation of the calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Because the time this accretion process took is not yet known, and predictions from different accretion models range from a few million up to about million years, the difference between the age of Earth and of the oldest rocks is difficult to determine. It is also difficult to determine the exact age of the oldest rocks on Earth, exposed at the surface, as they are aggregates of minerals of possibly different ages. Studies of stratathe layering of rocks and earth, gave naturalists an appreciation that Earth may have been through many changes during its existence.
Aristotle thought the earth had existed eternally. Roman poet Lucretius, intellectual heir to the Greek atomists, believed its formation must have been relatively recent, given that there were no records going back beyond the Trojan War. The Talmudic rabbis, Martin Luther and others used the biblical account to extrapolate back from known history and came up with rather similar estimates for when the earth came into being. Within decades observation began overtaking such thinking. In the s Nicolas Steno formulated our modern concepts of deposition of horizontal strata.
More about earth dating theories:
These same people say that science is important. Yet when asked why they reject all but the oldest science-based dating methods, the answer often given is that they think long-age radiometric dating is more reliable and that science settled the matter of the earth's age many years ago. What is less commonly known are any of the details of how the issue was settled: such as that the 4. And since this favored 'date' is the only one that's trumpeted by the media it is the earth dating theories date that many assume to be correct. There are many ways to keep track of time, the most reliable of which is to use actual records such as counting hours, days, weeks, and years. However, when we speak of the distant past, there are no historical records and thus no verifiable way to prove that a certain 'date' is correct. In many cases it is quite difficult to prove whether one method is superior to another: and in this regard, the only way of doing so is to closely examine how each method works and try to find fault with it.
The method may not be perfect, but it is the best we have for dating trees. Even though both are less than 5, years old, they are the two oldest living organisms on earth. Their ages easily fit the creationist point of view, but leave loose ends for the evolutionist. Prevailing winds are caused by two phenomena. Due to these prevailing winds, the Sahara Desert is in the process of desertification, expanding approximately four miles per earth dating theories. This young age of the Sahara Desert fits quite well in the creationist time line, beginning its desertification process soon after the global Flood.
Most people accept the current old-earth OE age estimate of around 4. This age is obtained from radiometric dating and is assumed by evolutionists to provide a sufficiently long time-frame for Darwinian evolution. And OE Christians theistic evolutionists see no problem with this dating whilst still accepting biblical creation, see Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective. This is the crucial point: it is claimed by some that an old earth supports evolutionary theory and by implication removes the need for biblical creation.