[_ Old Earth _] The Age of the Earth – The Helium Clock

[lordkalvan]

From post 113



Evolution says that we were created from rocks... That's not what the Bible says. The bible says that we were intentionally created for a specific purpose. We are not related to Rocks, sorry to tell ya that.

I thought the Bible said we were created from dirt - which is just powdered rocks, after all. ;-)

 

[stovebolts]

I thought the Bible said we were created from dirt - which is just powdered rocks, after all. ;-)

Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
************************************************************
http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/evolution_of_humankind.html
The birth of the universe

At the beginning of time, the universe was born when space opened up and was filled with an enormous explosion of energy. As the energy from this explosion radiated out into space, it cooled down and began to condense into matter.

Within a fraction of a second, most of the initial energy had condensed into fundamental particles of matter. After hundreds of thousands of years, as the universe continued to expand and cool down, these particles began to condense into atoms.

Billions of years ago, the conditions on the surface of the earth were very favorable for the formation of organic molecules. These molecules were washed into the sea to form pools of organic matter on the sea floor. Over millions of years, they continued to bond together to form increasingly long and complex molecular chains.

The first spark of life

Life began when one of these complex organic molecules began reacting with the other molecules around it in an unusual way. It was able to attract all of the pieces that it needed to assemble an identical copy of itself. The copy then split away from the original and began to assemble its own new copy.

After millions of years and countless mutations, new and more complex molecules developed a protective layer. The chemicals needed for replication could still pass through this protective layer, but the molecule was now safe from harmful reactions. The protective layer slowly evolved into a cell wall, and safely contained within the cell, the chemical reactions of life were able to evolve to become much more complex.

It took hundreds of millions of years, but eventually a new process evolved for producing a copy of a cell.

After billions of years of evolution, the rivers, lakes, and oceans of the world were swarming with a rich variety of single celled organisms. Some cells, such as algae, got their energy directly from sunlight, and some cells survived by eating other cells.

The most advanced single celled organisms had tiny arms that could swim through the water.

Early animals were very successful at swimming around, looking for food, and finding sexual partners. As populations grew, so did the number of mutations. As long as life was easy, food was abundant, and partners were easy to find, then there would be nothing to stop new variations from flourishing. This stage of evolution was like a ‘trying out’ period for new animal designs.

The temperature of seawater does not vary much, and so animals living in the sea are able to keep a relatively constant body temperature. Moving onto the land meant surviving a much wider range of temperatures, with cold nights and cold winters. The chemical reactions inside cells are sensitive to temperature. As the temperature drops, these reactions become slower.

Early mammals also adapted to living on the land by evolving higher body temperatures. This allowed them to move faster over longer distances and more actively search for food. They could hunt any time of the day or night, in any season, and could survive further north or south in colder climates. They evolved hairs on their skin to retain body warmth in cold weather.

Some tree dwellers became too large to walk across the tops of branches and began swinging beneath them instead. Their bodies became too heavy for their tails to act as a counterbalance, and so they lost their tails and developed a more upright posture to keep themselves balanced. Fewer branches could now support their weight. Instead of leaping between trees, they climbed down and walked between them.

The ancestors of humans

Around 7 million years ago, some of these ape-like creatures moved away from the forests and began living on the grass covered plains. As they spent less time in trees and more time traveling across open ground, evolutionary pressure favored those with longer legs, and they began walking upright.

Though we are 50% genetically similar to a banana

Well then, that explains everything! :toofunny

Maybe they were Helium deprived?

 

[Barbarian]

Though we are 50% genetically similar to a banana

A little more than that, I would think. We have more genes in common with bacteria than genes by which we differ. All life is pretty much the same "kind." A lot of enzymes work the same way in us as they work in bacteria. Bananas, being eukaryotes like us, would be much more similar.

Biochemistry is more often conserved than not.

 

[stovebolts]

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=39443&page=1

And I think that this is an extremely viable biblical view. One that we should really expand on.

Lets use this for example: And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.†And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

I've brought this up elsewhere, but look at what it says. How did God create all that stuff? He empowered the land. All the living creatures were produced through the land. So you have to ask the rudementary question... How did all that come from the land?

Scientists are closing in on that question. God didn't see fit to tell us, because it has nothing to do with the message He was giving us.

And I have to believe that the question lays somewhere around the answer that God created the earth with potential, and then he commands that potential to be expressed.

That was Augustine's point. He believed the initial creation was instantaneous, with the potential to produce everything else, which developed over time. The remarkable thing is, just a very few rules, or maybe just one, was sufficient to bring forth all of this as He intended. This speaks of an infinitely wise and capable God.

But I want to point out another thing as an example. The texts says kinds when it refers to the animals. In other words, I don't think that God had the earth bring forth a lion and a house cat. No, the earth only had to bring forth a genetically rich pair of that family, and that family was packed with so much potential, so much genetic diversity, that it could later adapt to it's environment etc which is why we now see such a diverse group within the cat family. What do you think about this idea?

The problem is that no animal could contain that much genetic diversity. If all the genes (much less alleles) found in cats were in one organism, it would die.

And that's not surprising. Humans can have, at most, two alleles for every gene locus. Yet most have dozens or more. Adam and Eve could have contributed at most, four alleles. All the rest must have evolved by mutation.

But ask yourself this question. If one family could be packed into one core, what would it look like?

Dead, mostly. Too many interfering genes. I can't think of any exception, except maybe in plants.

Though we are 50% genetically similar to a banana

A little more than that, I would think. We have more genes in common with bacteria than genes by which we differ. All life is pretty much the same "kind." A lot of enzymes work the same way in us as they work in bacteria. Bananas, being eukaryotes like us, would be much more similar.

Ok Barbarian, seems like you're talking in circles.... First you say that genetic diversity cannot be packed that tight, then you say that there is so much genetic diversity we're related to a banana...

 

[cupid dave]

From post 113



Evolution says that we were created from rocks... That's not what the Bible says. The bible says that we were intentionally created for a specific purpose. We are not related to Rocks, sorry to tell ya that.

The Bible actually impies that life began with a Spontaneous Generation of "the first sprouts of life on Earth," i.e.; erroneously translated at grass.

When it comes to man, the Bible says the "dust of the earth," which is not mud.
In fact, Theustic Evolution recognizes this as a reference to the 118 different kinds of Atoms we now know exist.

There is not direct statement in the Bible which denies evolution as a process God may or may not have utilized.
There are just factuak statement of pretty much what even now observe as the facts of life.

We can agree with modern thought about evolution of life more generally, in that the Plant kingdom was created first, followed by the Animal kingdom.

On the largest view of Biological Evolution, this is supporting information found in Genesis.
In the Physical Science point of view of Cosmic Evolution, the story of the step by step Genesis-Creation parallels our own Science today.

 

[Adam]

We can agree with modern thought about evolution of life more generally, in that the Plant kingdom was created first, followed by the Animal kingdom.

The evidence and scientific consensus place animals millions of years before plants.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nim...pw.r_qf.&fp=e6508bbfd8b4d35a&biw=1011&bih=578

 

[cupid dave]

Posted by cupid dave

We can agree with modern thought about evolution of life more generally, in that the Plant kingdom was created first, followed by the Animal kingdom.


/////


The evidence and scientific consensus place animals millions of years before plants.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nim...pw.r_qf.&fp=e6508bbfd8b4d35a&biw=1011&bih=578

Not so.
Your link merely extends the evidence of animal life back to 3/4 Billion years ago, while plants appeared 3.5 billion years ago as green algea, with celllls and photosyntheisizing ability to convert sun energy into sugar and Oxygen.



Go here:

V. The Diversity of Plant Life The Major Divisions of Plants

In this section the major divisions of plants and the basic characteristics of each type of plant will be listed.

Some comparisons will be made between extinct species and present day forms. But first, some mention should be made of our understanding of the origin of life on earth and the major events which must have taken place prior to the arrival of the land plants.

The oldest known life consists of forms of bacteria, blue-green algae, and green algae, all of which probably resided in salt water environments.

U.C.L.A. paleobotanist J. William Schopf and an international team of scientists had delayed announcement of the find for three years, while extensive tests were run on these filaments of cells to determine their age, chemical makeup and microscopic appearance. The studies convinced the group that this cellular life existed little more than one billion years after the earth�s formation.

The findings also suggest that a period of organic evolution took place much closer to the origins of the planet than previously realized. The 3.5 billion year old cells are near-identical in appearance to some present day bacteria, and more primitive forms must have preceded them.


Much additional evidence of life from approximately half a billion to three billion years ago has been gathered in the past 15 years, most notably by Elso S. Barghoorn of Harvard and by Schopf. The 3.2 billion year old chert of the Fig Tree formation in Transvaal, South Africa contains spherical microfassils named Eobacterium.

Chert (a flintlike or quartz-like rock) from the Gunflint formation in western Ontario, dated to 2.0 billion years ago, contains filamentous structures resembling present day blue-green algae. This is believed to be early evidence of photosynthetic activity.

Bacteria and blue-green algae have a prokaryotic organization. Their cells lack true nuclei, because of the absence of a nuclear membrane. The cellular unit of plants and animals is the more advanced eukaryotic cell, in which nuclear material is set off from the cytoplasm of the cell by a nuclear membrane.

Eukaryotic cells first appear in the fossil record in the 0.5 billion year old Bitter Springs charts, also in Australia�s Northern Territory. These cells are evidently photosynthetic and they most closely resemble the green algae. The eukaryotic organization achieved 500 million years ago led to rapid evolution of multicellularity in plants and animals, and most significantly to life on land.

 

[Adam]

Bacteria are not plants.

I think you already know that.

 

[cupid dave]

Bacteria are not plants.

I think you already know that.

Bacteria are not animals.


I think you already know that.

 

[Adam]

I never claimed they were.

 

[cupid dave]

From post 113



Evolution says that we were created from rocks... That's not what the Bible says. The bible says that we were intentionally created for a specific purpose. We are not related to Rocks, sorry to tell ya that.

The religious community needs to stand back from the shock of tDarwinism that was so ill received back during the Scope Trials, and reflect on the bigpicture.

The priest, Pierre Cardin Teilhard sort of described the same thing in a different way when he wrote his Omega Point that basically observed the apparwnt convergence of the whole mystery of Life as headed to some yet unknown end, or ... Omega Point.

he called that final end, Christogenesis:

This seems to be saying that this mystery of life has a purpose which we shall be introduced to in good time.

 

[Adam]

A fascinating subject that has found its way into a vast number of science fiction novels:

Star Maker
The Last Question
Childhood's End
Hyperion Cantos
Darwinia
Tomorrow and Tomorrow
Night's Dawn Trilogy


While a very interesting subject point for pulp fantasy lovers, it has no meaningful application to the theory of evolution.

 

[cupid dave]

A fascinating subject that has found its way into a vast number of science fiction novels:

Star Maker
The Last Question
Childhood's End
Hyperion Cantos
Darwinia
Tomorrow and Tomorrow
Night's Dawn Trilogy


While a very interesting subject point for pulp fantasy lovers, it has no meaningful application to the theory of evolution.

It has found its way into a theory we call evolution, today.

 

[Adam]

No, it hasn't.

 

[cupid dave]

No, it hasn't.

Has too...

 

[Free]

The religious community needs to stand back from the shock of tDarwinism that was so ill received back during the Scope Trials, and reflect on the bigpicture.

The priest, Pierre Cardin Teilhard sort of described the same thing in a different way when he wrote his Omega Point that basically observed the apparwnt convergence of the whole mystery of Life as headed to some yet unknown end, or ... Omega Point.

he called that final end, Christogenesis:

This seems to be saying that this mystery of life has a purpose which we shall be introduced to in good time.

That's just far too speculative and unsupported by both Scripture and science.

 

[Adam]

Has too...

Sir, if you believe that, then you don't know what the theory of evolution is.

 

[cupid dave]

The age of the earth is determined by using clocks that have been ticking in the core, or in rocks, or in our atmosphere, ever since the earth was formed. Helium in our atmosphere is one of those clocks; because helium in our atmosphere has been accumulated by the decay process of uranium in rocks. This is the same process of decay that is used for calculating the uranium-lead clock, for the uranium decays into lead through the process of alpha decay - which is escaped helium from uranium. Lead and helium are both radiogenic daughter products of uranium. As almost all rocks on earth contain uranium, the accumulation of helium 4 (alpha decay) in our atmosphere is synchronous with the age of rocks, or the crust of the earth. Our earth and our atmosphere are two clocks that were set in motion at the same time!

As both of these clocks were started at the same time, both of these clocks should yield the same age of the earth. In other words, the 4.6 billion years given for the uranium-lead clock needs to be consistent with the helium clock, otherwise the uranium-lead clock is inconsistent, unreliable, and not “scientificâ€.

The problem is that these two clocks show irreconcilable differences. If the uranium lead clock was correct, and the earth is 4.6 billion years old, then there would need to be 10,000 billion tons of radiogenic helium 4 in the atmosphere. The actual amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere is 3.5 billion tons – 0.035 percent of the required amount to match the 4.6 billion years of the uranium-lead clock.

In Where is the Earth's Radiogenic Helium?, Melvin Cook says: “AT the estimated 2 ×1020 gm. uranium and 5 × 1020 gm. thorium in the lithosphere, helium should be generated radiogenically at a rate of about 3 ×109gm./year. Moreover, the (secondary) cosmic-ray source of helium has been estimated to be of comparable magnitude. Apparently nearly all the helium from sedimentary rock sand, according to Keevil and Hurley, about 0.8 of the radiogenic helium from igneous rocks, have been released into the atmosphere during geological times (currently taken to be about 5 × 109 yr.). Hence more than 1020gm. of helium should have passed into the atmosphere since the `beginning'. Because the atmosphere contains only 3.5 × 1015 gm. helium-4, the common assumption is therefore that about 1020 gm. of helium-4 must also have passed out through the exosphere, and that its present rate of loss through the exosphere balances the rate of exudation from the lithosphere.â€

Scientists have assumed that the discrepancy of the missing 99.96 percent of helium has occurred through helium escaping the earth’s gravitational field into space. This has not been observed, however. In fact, they have observed the opposite. Another source of helium accumulation, such as when the earth travels through the solar atmosphere, actually builds on the helium quantities. Again, another source of accumulated helium are the factors wherein meteorite collisions and intense volcanism have brought about periods of accelerated decay. These periods could have brought about the alpha decay rate of helium diffusion many times of the natural diffusion rates.

With the combined accumulation of helium in the atmosphere, the calculation yields a date of 175,000 years. The natural rate contributed to by alpha decay may only be that of 10,000 - 15,000 years. This is but one example of a natural clock in which the age of the earth can be dated by other means than the uranium-lead clock, and how the same process gives radically different yields to what has become a scientific fantasy of 4.6 billion years.


http://www.christianforums.net/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=22#_ednref1 Nature,Volume 179, Issue 4552, pp. 213 (1957).

The Age of the Earth is less relevent to Genesis than the Histroy of the Earth, since the bible claims that God created the hevaens and the earth, and therein in six "stages: which genesis likened to "days.'

Of course, the 24 hour day was one of the creations, itself, taking place when God assigned the Sun, moon, and stars as the time keepers for planet earth.

This was accompished just after the 3rd stage of creation, when the Plant Kingdom came into being.
The fact that life requires a circadian "clock" makes this assignment of the Sun as the time keeper on Earth an important support for what is essentialy a rather analogous scientific correspondence between Genesis and the facts.

But it also specifically rules out the interpretation of scriopture to say the first six durations were 24 hour durations.
They could NOT have been, since the 24 hour day had not been created until duration four.


Since we have learned our Geology, it has been the rule to use the evidence in the six rock layers as a clock to date the History of the Earth.

The History of the Earth is marked by events recorded in the geological rocks.
Six major events mark that History, and the rocks evidence those six events by containing evidence of them.


People who want to refer to this histyory of the Earth use these six major divisions between the many rock layers.
In fact, all specific rock layers are subdivisions of just these six layers:

As stated above this color grapic above,...


"The Geological Time Scale can also be used to define the major stages in the History of life on Earth.
Often each era ends with a major extinction which eliminates the dominant life forms of the time, and paves the way for new comers."

The specific events, which are the History of the Earth, can be read in a short summary in each colored strip, but much more information concerning these six distinct historical events which unfolded in direct parallel to what is claimed in Genesis makes the Bible story synonymous with what is said by science today.

 

[Tri Unity]

The History of the Earth is marked by events recorded in the geological rocks. Six major events mark that History, and the rocks evidence those six events by containing evidence of them... People who want to refer to this histyory of the Earth use these six major divisions between the many rock layers.

Hi Cupid,

This subject is very difficult for most people, and we tend to rely on formulas to make it easier to understand. The 6 x 24-hour creation days are one formula; the 6 x advents of geological layers are another. Personally, I don’t think that the “science” supports either formula; but science has generally accepted the geological table as markers. Owing that our view on this does not determine whether or not we are saved, I am happy that we view this any way we wish. It is all a learning curve for us.

God has made the universe – this is the main thing that Christians agree upon. God may have taken billions of years to place light from stars at such great distances, of the process may have been achieved in less than a second (as the Big Bang postulates in the inflation model). It seems to me that the formation of the earth is on a completely different time-scale to the formation of the universe. The universe (the heavens and earth) was created before the first day of creation… “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. The “first day” came after this – light accompanied the first day. The heavens and the earth were both created before the first day; but the earth was still a water-ball without light. How long before the first day did God make "the heavens and the earth"? I don’t know. I think the red shift observation is not useful for determining the 13.6 billion years. It may have been much longer than that - or it may have been much shorter. If inflation can cause the light (and matter) from all stars to reach the ends of the universe in less than a second (see the subject of inflation in big bang cosmology), then God could have achieved it in less than a second also. Too, the angels exist inside our universe (heavens). The idea of dating the Big Bang is to place a starting point on the birth of angels too, unless you say that they were created outside of time and space. The angels had lordships and thrones and dominions before the days of creation (IMO). It is indeed a tricky subject that often gets very passionate.

God Bless

 

[cupid dave]

Hi Cupid,

This subject is very difficult for most people, and we tend to rely on formulas to make it easier to understand. The 6 x 24-hour creation days are one formula; the 6 x advents of geological layers are another. Personally, I don’t think that the “science” supports either formula; but science has generally accepted the geological table as markers. Owing that our view on this does not determine whether or not we are saved, I am happy that we view this any way we wish. It is all a learning curve for us.

God has made the universe – this is the main thing that Christians agree upon. God may have taken billions of years to place light from stars at such great distances, of the process may have been achieved in less than a second (as the Big Bang postulates in the inflation model). It seems to me that the formation of the earth is on a completely different time-scale to the formation of the universe. The universe (the heavens and earth) was created before the first day of creation… “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. The “first day” came after this – light accompanied the first day. The heavens and the earth were both created before the first day; but the earth was still a water-ball without light. How long before the first day did God make "the heavens and the earth"? I don’t know. I think the red shift observation is not useful for determining the 13.6 billion years. It may have been much longer than that - or it may have been much shorter. If inflation can cause the light (and matter) from all stars to reach the ends of the universe in less than a second (see the subject of inflation in big bang cosmology), then God could have achieved it in less than a second also. Too, the angels exist inside our universe (heavens). The idea of dating the Big Bang is to place a starting point on the birth of angels too, unless you say that they were created outside of time and space. The angels had lordships and thrones and dominions before the days of creation (IMO). It is indeed a tricky subject that often gets very passionate.

God Bless

Oh, definitely.

Most people accept Genesis and read on.
They all basically were raise in this culture which had already pre-set their comprehension before reading.

But they will meet atheists, comedians like Bill Maher, and even the peer groups who their kids go to school with.
My interest is in laying out the verse by verse analysis of what Genesis actually says, and comparing them with what science will teach them, just to show that the two tales about creation are basically the same.

I am unconcerned with the saved, but see daily evidence that the evermore archaic medieval dogma that teaches the next generation is both wrong, contradictory of facts, and not being accepted readily as young people suffer verbal abuse and ridicule reiterating what their church sticks to as doctrine.


What you posted is not exactly correct either.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted of

Seven Stages:
1) The Inflation Era
2) The Quark Era
3) Hadron Era
4) Lepton Era
5) Nucleosynthesis Era
6) Opaque Era
7) Matter Era,...
in an enormous Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2),...
... the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (accretion disk which congealed into the planet) earth.

The first "day" of that long Formative Era ended in the evening of the matter Era and the Cryptic morning of the Hadean Era...