Other Links:
A look at the arguments used by Kent Hovind to "prove" that the
Earth is young.
A comprehensive look at the claims of all kinds of creationists arguments including
young-earth arguments not debunked in "How Old is the Earth."
n spite of
conclusive evidence of the Earth&s antiquity, the
proponents of &scientific& creationism stubbornly
maintain that the Earth is only about 10,000 years old ().
How do they arrive at these numbers? They have no consistent set
of data that leads to any definite age for the Earth. Their
&evidence& consists of invalid criticisms of the
legitimate scientific data, as discussed above, and of some
calculations that supposedly show that the Earth is very young.
These calculations occur throughout the literature of creation
&science& (e.g.,
), and they have been conveniently tabulated by Morris
(, ) and Morris and Parker
Concerning this
tabulation, Morris and Parker () make the following statement:
There are, as a
matter of fact, scores of worldwide processes which give ages far
too young to suit the standard Evolution Model. There are 68
types of such calculations listed in Table I, all of them
independent of each other and all applying essentially to the
entire earth, or one of its major components or to the solar
system. All give ages far too young to accommodate the Evolution
Model. All are based on the same types of calculations and
assumptions used by evolutionists on the very few systems
(uranium, potassium, rubidium) whose radioactive decay seems to
indicate ages in the billions of years. As noted in items 25 and
26 in Table I, even these methods (when based on real empirical
evidence) yield young ages.
most obvious characteristic of the values listed in the table is
their extreme variability & all the way from 100 years to
500,000,000 years. This variability, of course, simply reflects
the errors in the fundamental uniformitarian
assumptions.
Nevertheless,
all things considered, it seems that those ages on the low end of
the spectrum are likely to be more accurate than those on the
high end. This conclusion follows from the obvious fact that: (1)
they are less likely to have been affected by initial
concentrations or positions other than &zero&; (2)
the assumption that the system was a &closed system&
is more likely to be valid for a short time
(3) the assumption that the process rate was constant is also
more likely to be valid for a short time than for a long
Thus, it is
concluded that the weight of all the scientific evidence favors
the view that the earth is quite young, far too young for life
and man to have arisen by an evolutionary process. The origin of
all things by direct creation & already necessitated by
many other scientific considerations & is therefore also
indicated by chronometric data. (, p. 251-252;
also , p. 53-54)
: Some Representative Ages of the Earth as Proposed by
Creationists
Age (years)
Earth10,000Barnes()
Earth10,000Morris ()
Earth13,000Camping ()
Earth10,000 - 20,000Kofahi and Segraves ()
Galaxiesnearly 6,000Gentry ()
Cosmos6,000 - 10,000Slusher ()
Earth7,000 - 10,000Slusher ()
&Ages of the Earth& as Tabulated by Morris and Parker
( Table I, pp.
254-259). Similar Lists Appear in Morris (,
). None of
These Methods and Results are Scientifically
Indicated age ofthe Earth (years)
2.Influx of radiocarbon to the Earth system10,000
3.Too small to calculate
4.Influx of juvenile water to the oceans340,000,000
5.500,000,000
6.Growth of oldest living part of the biosphere5,000
7.Origin of human civilizations5,000
8.1,750 - 175,000
9.Development of the total human population4,000
10.30,000,000
11.14,000,000
12.Leaching of sodium from the continents32,000,000
13.Leaching of chlorine from the continents1,000,000
14.Leaching of calcium from the continents12,000,000
15.100,000
16.10,000,000
17.164,000,000
18.1,000,000
19.1,260,000
20.Efflux of oil from traps by fluid pressure10,000 - 100,000
21.Too small to measure
22.Too small to measure
23.Decay of natural remanent paleomagnetism100,000
24.Decay of C in Precambrian wood4,000
25.Too small to measure
26.Too small to measure
28.50,000,000
29.80,000,000
30.Decay of lines of galaxies10,000,000
31.Expanding interstellar gas60,000,000
32.Decay of short-period comets10,000
33.Decay of long-period comets1,000,000
34.Influx of small particles to the Sun83,000
35.Maximum life of meteor showers5,000,000
36.Accumulation of dust on the Moon200,000
37.Instability of the rings of Saturn1,000,000
38.Escape of methane from Titan20,000,000
39.Deceleration of the earth by tidal friction500,000,000
40.24,000,000
41.5,000,000
42.260,000,000,
44.45,000,000,
46.11,000,000,
47.50,000,
48.560,000,
49.2,100,000,
50.42,000,
52.100,000,
54.20,000,000,
59.18,000,
60.180,000,
61.270,000,
62.19,000,000,
63.45,000,
65.350,000,
67.84,000,
68.500,000,
The problem
with these 68 &ages& of the Earth is that they are
all either based on false initial assumptions or have too many
unknown variables for a reliable solution, or both. Nearly all
these methods have been aired in the scientific literature and
found to be so worthless that scientists do not use them for
determining the age of the Earth.
An inspection
of the reference lists provided by Morris (, ) and Morris and Parker () shows that most of the calculations were done and published by
Morris and his colleagues. Those calculations that are attributed
to scientific journals do not actually appear there but, instead,
represent unjustified interpretations by creationists of
legitimate scientific data.
In addition,
Morris () and Morris and Parker () draw an unwarranted parallel between their calculations and
radiometric dating. Most of their &ages& rely on the
assumption of constant rates for processes known to vary.
Radiometric dating, in contrast, is based on a process
(radioactive decay) known not to vary significantly with changes
in physical or chemical conditions.
Creationists
(e.g., ) frequently claim that
&evolutionists&
the principle of uniformity to interpret scientific data, but
these authors badly misrepresent the modern meaning of
uniformitarianism. The principle of uniformity was developed in
the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when geologists finally
realized that the rocks and features of the Earth were formed by
processes similar to those observable today operating over long
periods. This was an important breakthrough in scientific thought
because it meant that the Earth&s history could be
explained as the result of understandable, natural processes,
rather than unknowable, supernatural, catastrophic evens.
Creationists, however, typically state or imply that the
principle of uniformity, as used by scientists, means that the
rates of natural processes are always constant. Hubbert
() reviewed the principle of uniformity and concluded that it is
no longer a useful principle.
History, human
or geological, represents our hypothesis, couched in terms of
past events, devised to explain our present-day observations.
What are our assumptions in such a procedure? Fundamentally, they
(1) We assume
that natural laws are invariant with time
(2) We exclude
hypotheses of the violation of natural laws by
Providence, or other forms of supernaturalism. (, p.
principle of uniformity, if it has any meaning at all in modern
science, includes no more than these two principles. Indeed, most
modern scholars of the subject have concluded that
uniformitarianism today is simply the application of the
scientific method to nature and that the term is so confusing it
should be abandoned (for example, Gould, , p. 111). Thus, in assuming and then condemning constant rates for
geologic processes, Morris and Parker () and their colleagues have set up a straw man based on an
obsolete historical definition of uniformity that no modern
geologist would accept.
remainder of this chapter I examine 49 of the &ages&
of the Earth advanced by creation &scientists&, using
Morris and Parker&s () tabulation
() as a guide. I will show that all 49 of
these ages are invalid and that most are probably best described
as silly. I do not discuss the remaining ages listed in
either because they are not within my area of expertise or
because I simply did not have time to investigate them. I think
it is reasonable to assume, however, that the 70 percent or so I
did investigate are
representative and that the methods I do not discuss are likewise
meaningless.
Other Links:
A debunking of the common young-earth creationist claims that
a decaying magnetic field shows that the the Earth is young.
(, ) claims to have proved that the Earth can be no more than 10,000
years old:
Applying the
reasonable premise that this planet never had a magnetic field as
great as that of a magnetic star, one can note from
the origin of the earth&s magnetic field had to be more
recent than 8000 B.C. That is to say, the origin of the
earth&s magnetic field was less than 10,000 years ago. Just
how much more recent than 10,000 years cannot be determined from
present scientific knowledge. If one assumes that the initial
value of the earth&s magnetic field were about an
order-of-magnitude less than that of a magnetic star the origin
would have been about six or seven thousand years ago.
statements are made by Morris (), Slusher (), and Kofahl and Segraves (), who cite Barnes () as their source.
() argument goes like this. The strength of the Earth&s
dipole moment has been decreasing linearly since magnetic-field
measurements were begun in the early 1800s. This decrease amounts
to about 6 percent between 1835 and 1965. Following an hypothesis
he erroneously attributes to Sir Horace Lamb, Barnes claims that
the magnetic field has been decaying exponentially since the
creation of the Earth and calculates that the half-life of the
decay is 1400 years. He then extrapolates the decay of the field
backward in time until he arrives at the value for a magnetic
star, and uses that time (8000 B.C.) to arrive at an upper limit
for the age of the Earth.
In another
report () I show in detail how Barnes& () calculations and conclusions are flawed by false initial
assumptions and an overly simplified view of magnetic-field
behavior. Thus, it will suffice to summarize briefly the evidence
against Barnes& propositions.
To a first
approximation, the Earth&s field is that of a
with the lines
of flux emerging at the poles. On the average, over periods of
100,000 to 1,000,000 years, the magnetic poles coincide with the
Earth&s rotational poles. The
shape of the dipole field is not ideal but is highly distorted by
irregularities superimposed on the dipole field. These
irregularities, collectively called the nondipole field, are
thought to be caused by eddy currents in the liquid core at the
Earth&s core/mantle boundary. Like the dipole field, the
nondipole field is slowly and constantly changing. The
Earth&s magnetic field we actually observe at any spot on
the Earth is the sum of dipole and nondipole fields.
As if this
behavior were not complex enough, the Earth&s dipole field
does other remarkable things. For example, it occasionally
reverses polarity, so that the north pole becomes the south pole
and vice versa (). Paleomagnetic measurements on lava flows indicate that these
polarity reversals have occurred at irregular but frequent
intervals. Barnes () denies that the Earth&s field has reversed, but he fails
to cite the relevant literature on the subject and does not
refute the numerous observations that prove field
The field also
changes intensity or strength, though not in the way Barnes
() claims. A careful analysis of the Earth&s field by
McDonald and Gunst () showed that the decrease in the dipole moment over the past 50
years has been balanced by a corresponding increase
the nondipole component of the field, so that the total energy of
the field external to the Earth&s core has been
approximately constant. Over the past 120 years, however, it
appears that the nondipole-field increase has not been quite
sufficient to balance the dipole-field decrease, and so the total
field appears to have been decreasing at an average annual rate
of about 0.01 percent (), much less than the value used by Barnes (). Is there any reason to conclude that this short-term decrease
is permanent, as Barnes claims? No. There is conclusive evidence,
for example, that the Earth&s field temporarily decays
during polarity reversals, which have been frequent during
geologic history. Paleomagnetic measurements of the magnetic
record in rocks indicate that the Earth&s dipole moment
over the past 8000 years or
has not been continuously decaying but, instead, has been
fluctuating (). How much of this fluctuation is balanced
by the nondipole field and how much is a fluctuation in the total
magnetic-field energy is not known, but the field certainly does
not behave as Barnes () claims. Barnes makes the fundamental error of equating the
strength of the dipole field with the strength of the total field
and, in doing so, ignores the nondipole field, a major component.
He also errs in equating the strength of the dipole field with
the total-field energy, most of which is probably locked up in a
toroidal component internal to the liquid core and, thus,
unobservable from the surface of the Earth.
Geomagnetic dipole moment estimated from 500-year global averages
of measurements on lava flows and archeological materials, such
as bricks and pottery. Vertical lines are standard deviations.
Dots are averages from three or more regions of the Earth,
half-filled circles two regions, and circles a single region. The
dotted line is the ave the dashed line is
the value for the 1965 field. After Champion
The magnetic
record in rocks
indicates that the Earth&s magnetic field during
Precambrian times was within about 50 percent or so of its
present strength (). These observations are consistent with theoretical
considerations, which show that the Earth&s field is
probably generated by a self-exciting fluid dynamo in the
Earth&s liquid-metal core and that the necessary energy
comes from either radioactive heat within the Earth or
gravitational energy, or both. Some time in the future, the
magnetic field of the Earth may begin to decrease permanently as
the Earth&s available energy is used up, but it will be
billions of years before that happens.
cannot be dated by its magnetic field, and Barnes&
() calculations are meaningless, as is his maximum age for the
nos. 3, 36)
Other Links:
A detailed look at creationist fallacy.
The young-earth creationist organization, Answers in Genesis, says that
meteorite dust arguments are flawed and should no longer used by
creationists.
Morris and
Parker () list two age calculations based on the influx of meteoritic
dust to the Earth (&Too small to calculate&) and the
Moon (200,000 years), referenced to Morris () and Slusher (), respectively. Morris () argues that the age of the Earth cannot be great because if it
were, there would be a thick layer of meteoritic dust on both the
Earth and the Moon.
lists the data he uses.
Morris& values for the density of the dust and the area of
the Earth are reasonable, and his slight exaggeration of the age
of the Earth is unimportant to this discussion. The real problem
is with his value for the influx of meteoritic dust from space,
which Morris takes from Petterson ().
() collected particulate matter from the top of Mauna Loa on the
Island of Hawaii, using an air pump designed to sample smog. He
analyzed the dust content in a known volume of air for the
element nickel. Using a value of 2.5 percent for the nickel
content of meteoritic material and assuming that all nickel in
the atmospheric dust comes from space, he calculated that about
15 million tons of meteoritic dust falls on the Earth each year.
Petterson () concluded that his calculation was an upper limit and, after
evaluating all the available data, stated that a value of 5
million tons per year was more reasonable. Note that Morris
() didn&t get Petterson&s upper limit of 15 million
tons per year correct and that he completely ignored
Petterson&s preferred value.
Although there
is probably nothing fundamentally wrong with Petterson&s
() measurements, his assumptions that nickel is a rare element in
the Earth&s crust and in atmospheric dust, and that all the
nickel can be attributed to dust from space, are incorrect. More
significant is the fact that Petterson&s
() measurements were made in 1957, the same year that the first
satellite was launched. Since the late 1960s, much better and
more direct measurements of the meteoritic influx to the Earth
have been available from satellite penetration data. In a
comprehensive review article, Dohnanyi () showed that the mass of meteoritic material impinging on the
Earth is only about 22,000 tons per year, a value that would
result in a layer only 8.1 centimeters thick in 4.55 billion
years (). Other recent estimates of the mass of
interplanetary matter reaching the Earth from space, based on
satellite-borne detectors, range from about 11,000 to 18,000 tons
per year (); estimates based on the cosmic-dust content of deep-sea
sediment are comparable (e.g., , ). Thus, Morris () is off by a factor of more than 600. His conclusion about the
thickness of dust on the Moon
he apparently
neglects gravitational effects, which reduce the influx per unit
area to the Moon by a factor of about 2.
: Comparison of Creationist and Scientific Versions of
Meteoritic Dust on the Earth and the Moon. Following Morris
Calculations are Based on the Highly Questionable Assumptions
that the Influx of Dust has been Constant Throughout Geologic
History and that No Erosion has Occurred
Creationist version ()
Influx of dust to the Earth14 & 106 tons/yr
Density of the dust140 lb/ft3
Area of the Earth5.5 & 1015 ft2
Age of the Earth5 & 109 yr
RESULTS:&1) Layer on the Earth 182 ft (5048 cm) thick
2) Layer on the Moon at least as thick
Scientific version
Influx of dust to the Earth4 & 10-9 g/cm2&yr (20,084 tons/yr)
Influx of dust to the Moon2 & 10-9 g/cm2&yr (2,989 tons/yr)
Density of the dust2.24 g/cm3 (140 lbs/ft3)
Area of the Earth5.10 & 1018 cm2
(5.49 & 1015 ft2)
Area of the Moon1.52 & 1018 cm2
(1.63 & 1015 ft2)
Age of the Earth and the Moon4.55 & 109 yr
RESULTS:&1) Layer on the Earth 8.1 cm thick
2) Layer on the Moon 4.1 cm thick
() likewise fails to avail himself of current knowledge on the
subject and, instead, uses obsolete dust-influx estimates ranging
from 3.6 million to 256 million tons per year. In addition, he
advances the erroneous argument that the impact of meteoritic
material and radiation from space should have created, by
pulverization, a layer of regolith (&soil&) many
miles thick if the Moon is 4.5 billion years old.
a layer, say 0.0004 inch thick of pulverized matter, is formed
per year, then, in 10,000 years a layer about four inches in
dep in 100,000 years a layer of 40
in 1,000,000 years a layer of 3.3 in 4,500,000,000 years a
layer about 28 miles in depth would be formed.
He apparently
fails to realize, however, that once a layer of pulverized
material is formed, repeated impacts primarily will stir the
existing layer rather than increase its thickness. As Dutch
() has pointed out, Slusher&s () argument is equivalent to arguing that if a farmer plows his
field to a depth of 20 centimeters each spring, in 100 years he
(and his successors) will have plowed to a total depth of 20
Considering
that good satellite data on meteoritic influx were available
before Morris () and Slusher () published their papers, they obviously have been highly
selective in their choice of obsolete data. A more fundamental
point, however, is that such calculations are based on faulty
premises, including the erroneous assumptions that the meteoritic
influx has remained constant for 4.5 billion years and that
erosion is negligible, and thus are of no value in determining
the age of the Earth or the Moon.
Finally, I have
been unable to find the 200,000-year &age of the
Earth& based on the accumulation of dust on the Moon
(No. , ) in Slusher&s () paper, nor can I find any data from which this result could
have been obtained. Apparently, Morris and Parker
() have credited Slusher () with a calculation that he did not do.
Morris and
Parker () list an age of 500 million years based on the &influx of
magma from mantle to form crust.& This calculation, which
appears in Morris (), is based on the volume (0.2 km3/yr) of lava erupted by Paricutin Volcano in Mexico during the
1940s. Morris () notes that intrusive rocks are much more common than lava
that it seems reasonable to assume that at least 10 cubic
kilometers of new igneous rocks are formed each year by flows
from the earth&s mantle.
total volume of the earth&s crust is about 5 & 109
kilometers. Thus, the entire crust could have been formed by
volcanic activity at present rates in only 500 million years,
which would only take us back into the Cambrian period. On the
other hand, all geologists would surely agree that practically
all the earth&s crust had been formed billions of years
before that time.
uniformitarian model once again leads to a serious problem and
contradiction. (,p. 157)
&uniformitarian model& of which Morris
() is so critical is a product of Morris (), not science. He has pulled the value of 10
km3/yr from thin air, assumed that this fictitious rate has been
constant over time, and neglected erosion, sedimentation, crustal
recycling, and the fact that the injection of magma into the
crust is a highly nonuniform process about which little is known.
Morris& () calculation is worthless.
This age is
referenced to a report by Cook (), but the calculation was done by Morris (), using data from Cook&s paper:
Consequently
the maximum age of the atmosphere, assuming no original helium in
the atmosphere, would be
a matter of fact, Henry Faul (Faul, 1954) has cited evidence that
the rate of efflux of helium into the atmosphere & is
about 100 times greater than the value used by Cook. This in turn
would reduce the age of the atmosphere down to several thousand
years! (, p. 151)
The values in
this calculation are the content of 4He in the present atmosphere (3.5 & 1015
and the estimated total efflux (1020
from the Earth&s crust and mantle throughout geologic time
Morris& () calculation is based on the assumption that all the helium
released into the atmosphere would be retained, an assumption
known to be false.
The helium
balance in the atmosphere has been a subject of much study
(). Calculations show that at the present rates of
production, the entire atmospheric content of
4He and 3He could be supplied in about 2.3 million and 0.7 million years,
respectively. Various mechanisms are known, however, by which
helium escapes from the atmosphere into outer space.
temperatures, the velocity of the average helium atom is less
than the velocity required for escape from the Earth&s
gravitational field. The elevated temperature in the exosphere,
however, increases the kinetic energy of the helium atoms, so
that some do escape. Calculations show that this mechanism could
account for the escape of about half the 3He produced. Because 4
He is about a third heavier than 3He, however, thermal escape is probably insufficient by a factor
of about 40 to account for the loss of 4He.
The apparent inadequacy of thermal escape is the basis for
Cook&s () report and Morris& () calculation, but these authors have overlooked other
mechanisms.
probable mechanism for helium loss is photoionization of helium
by the polar wind and its escape along open lines of the
Earth&s magnetic field. Banks and Holzer
() have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2
to 4 & 106
ions/cm2&sec of
4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of
(2.5 & 1.5) & 106
atoms/cm2&sec.
Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to
the production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct
interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during
the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the
field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern () estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5
million years would have assured a balance between helium
production and loss.
Calculations
involving the helium balance in the atmosphere are complex
because they are sensitive to solar activity, geomagnetic-field
fluctuations, the rate of helium production from the Earth, and
other factors. Although the helium-balance problem is not yet
completely solved, it is clear that helium can and does escape
from the atmosphere in amounts sufficient to balance production.
The main problem is that the exact roles of the several known
mechanisms are unknown. The helium balance of the atmosphere
certainly is not a basis for calculating any reasonable estimate
of the Earth&s age. Any attempt to do so
() requires an unjustified oversimplification of a complex
nos. 10 and 11)
&ages& are based on some calculations by the creation
&scientist&
(), who used the following basic data:
Present influx
of sediment to the ocean = 27.5 & 109
Present mass of
sediment in the ocean = 820 & 1015
Present mass of
the continents above sea level = 383 & 1015
Dividing (2) by
(1), Nevins () calculates that all the sediment now in the world&s
oceans could have accumulated in 30 dividing (3)
by (1), he finds that the present continents could be leveled in
14 million years. From these results, Nevins () concludes:
After careful
analysis of the erosion of continents and associated
sedimentation in the world ocean, we must ask two urgent
questions. Where is all the sediment if, as the evolutionist
assumes, the ocean is over 1 billion years old? Who has the
better model for the ocean & the evolutionist or the
creationist? We feel confident that the true answers concerning
the origin of the ocean are presented in Scripture. &The
sea is His and He made it& (Psalm 95:5).
Both the basic
assumptions and logic of Nevins& () arguments are wrong. First, he has confused the length of time
over which the ocean has existed on the Earth with the ages of
the present ocean floors. The existence of abundant Precambrian
marine sediment, some more than 3.5 billion years old, clearly
demonstrates that the early Earth had an ocean. Some of this
earliest sediment contains structures that indicate the presence
of algae, and there are undisputed microfossils in sedimentary
rocks more than 2 billion years old (). The Earth, however, is a dynamic body, and the ocean basins
are among its youngest features. The floors of the world&s
ocean range in age from recent at the crests of midoceanic
ridges, where new oceanic crust is forming, to as old as Jurassic
() in the parts farthest from the ridges. The sediment in
the ocean is practically nonexistent at the ridges and
away from the
ridges as the age of the sea floor increases. At the trenches,
the sea floors, sediment and all, are being forced down into the
mantle where they are consumed to be recycled. Thus, the ocean
floors are neither so old nor so passive as Nevins&
() calculations presume, and the age of 1 billion years attributed
by him to &evolutionists& is of his own
invention.
Second, Nevins
() has assumed constant rates for erosion and sedimentation,
processes whose rates have, in fact, varied constantly throughout
geologic time.
Finally, Nevins
() has neglected the fact that the continents are also dynamic and
have grown appreciably over time, both by accretion of material
at the margins and by addition of material from the mantle below.
Uplift, primarily by buoyant and compressional forces, is also a
significant factor that tends to offset the leveling effect of
deposition of sediment in the ocean basins and the erosion of
continents are parts of a larger, dynamic, and cyclic process
that is continually changing the face of the Earth. The mass of
sediment in the ocean is not unexpectedly
low, nor is the mass of the continents above sea level
unexpectedly high. Nevins& () calculations provide no useful information about the age of
either the Earth or its ocean.
Morris and
Parker () present two calculations based on data from a report by Bloch
(), a geologist with the Oklahoma Geological Survey. Using
Bloch&s () values for the amount of dissolved uranium in the ocean (3.64
& 1015 g), and the present
influx of uranium to the ocean (1.92 & 1010 g/yr), Morris
and Parker () state:
Dividing the
first number by the second gives about 189,000 years as the
maximum age of the ocean, even with the, very unlikely
assumptions that the ocean contained no uranium when it was
formed and the river influx was no greater in the past than at
present (actually, all the world&s rivers give abundant
evidence of carrying much greater flows in the earlier years of
their history). The true age would most likely be much smaller
than this. (, p. 249)
Morris and
Parker () also comment on the possibility that uranium was being removed
again, citing Bloch:
However, the
old-earth proponent would undoubtedly counter by insisting that
much of the dissolved uranium would probably be precipitated out
in estuarine or oceanic sediments. Bloch, in fact, has carefully
determined the effect of all such possibilities.
detailed mass-balance calculation for uranium has shown that only
about 10% of the present-day river input of dissolved uranium can
be removed by known sinks.
That is not
all, however.
and high-temperature alteration of basalts, organic-rich
sediments and co-existing phosphorites on continental margins,
metalliferous sediments, carbonate sediments, and sediments in
anoxic basins deeper than 200 meters remove about three-fourths of
the present-day riverine supply to the ocean.
Since these
would seem to exhaust the possibilities, at least 15% of the
annual riverine influx of uranium is still available to build up
the ocean&s uranium content. Making this
allowance, the maximum
possible age of the ocean, based on this type of uranium dating,
becomes 189,000 + 0.15, or 1,260,000 years. (, pp.
Morris and
Parker&s () first calculation is made worthless by their assumptions of
constant rates of influx and the absence of uranium removal. The
second calculation suffers from a more serious flaw: The second
quotation from Bloch () is incomplete. The next two sentences of Bloch&s
() statement read as follows:
remainder can most likely be accounted for by the combined
uncertainties in the estimates of U sources and sinks. It appears
that the steady state of the world ocean with respect to U can
still be maintained in spite of the fact that anthropogenic
contributions of this element may be significant.
(, p. 376)
In other words,
the uncertainties in the estimates of the rates of influx and
removal do not permit Morris and Parker&s
() conclusion that the uranium in the ocean is not in balance. So
far as it known, the amount of uranium in the ocean is in a
steady state.
Finally, I
should point out that Morris and Parker&s
() arithmetic is faulty. They apparently have added the 10 percent
from the first quotation (which actually is the portion
attributable to carbonate sediment and anoxic basins only) to the
75 percent in the second quote to obtain their 15 percent
&imbalance.& In Bloch&s () report however, the 75 percent value includes all sinks, and so
the &remainder& that falls within the uncertainties
of the data is 25 percent, not 15 percent.
nos. 15-18 and 42-68)
In addition to
uranium, discussed above, Morris and Parker () list 31 other &ages& of the Earth based on the
influx of various elements and compounds to the ocean via rivers.
These ages range from 100 years (aluminum) to 260 million years
(sodium) and are cited as evidence for a young Earth:
calculations can be made for all the other dissolved chemicals in
the ocean. All will yield relatively small ages (at least in
comparison to usual evolutionary estimates of the age of the
ocean) but all will, of course, yield different ages. Again,
however, even allowing for all realistically possible
&sinks,& sedimentation, recycling, etc., none will
yield an age anywhere close to the billion-year ages required for
evolution.
Attempts to
&date& the Earth using the dissolved chemicals in the
ocean were common in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Probably
the best known example is the calculation by Joly
() that the Earth&s age is 89 million years, based on the
amount of sodium in the ocean. It has been known for many
decades, however, that such calculations are wrong because the
ocean is in approximate chemical balance, as clearly recognized
validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the
determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in
the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state
and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the
oceans. (, p. 73)
The primary
documentation referenced for ages
the book edited by Riley and Skirrow (). Neither Morris
(, ) nor Morris and Parker ()
discuss the calculations that led to these 27 ages, perhaps
because there are no such calculations. The values given by these
authors are copied directly from a chapter by Goldberg
() that appears in Riley and Skirrow ().
Goldberg&s () Table I is a list of the abundances and
residence times
of the e it is these residence times that
Morris (, 95) and Morris and Parker () give as indicated ages of the Earth. The residence time of an
element, however is the average time
that any small amount of an element remains in seawater before it
is removed, not, as stated by Morris (), the time &to accumulate in ocean from river
inflow,& and has nothing to do with the ages of either the
Earth or the ocean. Morris (, , ) and Morris and Parker () have totally misrepresented the data listed in Goldberg&s
() table. Morris and Parker () also reference a paper by the creationist Camping
(), who also confuses residence times with &times to
accumulate& and fails to realize that the chemicals in the
ocean are basically in a state of dynamic balance.
documentation cited by Morris and Parker () for carbonate, sulfate, chlorine, and calcium (Nos.
-, ) is a book by the creationist author Whitney
(), whose calculations also are meaningless because they suffer
from the same inadequacies discussed above.
As I pointed
out above, the influx of chemicals into the ocean cannot be used
to calculate the age of the Earth because the ocean is in
approximate, if not exact, chemical equilibrium. For example,
virtually the entire world&s supply of chlorine (,
no. ) is in the ocean, and nearly all the chlorine carried by rivers
is of cyclic origin (). Chlorine simply evaporates from the ocean, and falls in
rainwater either directly back into the ocean or runs into
rivers, where it is returned to the sea. Aluminum enters the sea
primarily as particulate matter from the weathering and erosion
of rocks. It quickly either settles out as sediment or reacts
with other elements to form new minerals, and
thus has a residence time in ocean water of only about 100
The influx of
chemicals to the ocean is an invalid and worthless method of
determining the age of the Earth. Morris (, ) and Morris and Parker () have misrepresented fundamental geochemical data and ignored
virtually everything that is known about the geochemistry of
nos. 21 and 22)
&ages& are referenced to the book by Cook
(). I have discussed the flaws in Cook&s
() reasoning
concerning the effects of neutron reactions on lead isotope
ratios in a
I could not find any mention in his book of a similar effect on
strontium isotopes, and so how and where Morris and Parker
() obtained this &too small to measure& age is, at
present, a mystery.
nos. 25 and 26)
The ages of the
Earth resulting from these two &methods& are given as
&too small to measure,& and the calculation is
referenced to Slusher (). I have read both the 1973 and 1981 editions of Slusher&s
monograph several times and cannot find these age-of-the-Earth
calculations nor any data from which such a calculation could
conceivably be made. Apparently, Morris and Parker
() have credited their colleague with calculations that he did not
The reference
for this &age of the Earth& of 5,000 years is a paper
by Allen () that was originally published in the
Deluge Geology and Related Sciences (v. 2, no. 2, p. 37-62) in
September of 1942, and reprinted in 1972 in the
Creation Research
Society Quarterly. Benjamin Allen was a lawyer who for years was
the head of the Deluge Society of Los Angeles
() reviews the mid-19th century controversy between Charles Lyell,
the noted British geologist and close friend of Charles Darwin,
and General Andrews Humphreys of the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers concerning the age of the Mississippi River delta.
Based on a total sediment thickness of 528 ft, Lyell calculated
that the delta and, therefore, the Mississippi River, are 61,000
years old. Adopting the arguments of Humphreys, Allen
() asserts that only the uppermost 40 ft are delta sediment, and
that the underlying sediment
is of marine origin. On this basis, he concludes that the
Mississippi River and its delta, as well as the other major
rivers of the world, originated at the close of the flood 4500 to
5000 years ago. Central to Allen&s () thesis is his rejection of the role of subsidence in the
accumulation of delta sediment.
There is no
disagreement that the present delta of the Mississippi River is
relatively young. Recent studies (for example,
) indicate that
deposition began about 18,000 years ago during the last major
glaciation when sea level was more than 400 ft lower than at
present. Deposition has been rapid, and the sediment reaches a
known thickness of 1000 ft. This thickness has been accommodated
partly by the rise in sea level following the ice ages and partly
by subsidence of the older formations on which the delta was
deposited.
() article is more than four decades out of date, and he draws
much of his data and arguments from papers published in the 19th
century. Since Allen&s article was first printed in 1942,
there have been an enormous number of new data published on the
geological history of the Mississippi delta, many of them
collected by drilling,
seismic surveys using methods unavailable in the first half of
the 20th century. Thus, Allen&s information about the
composition, thickness, and age of the delta sediment is
incorrect. Allen also ignores the fact that the present delta is
but the latest depositational phase in a continuing episode of
deltaic sedimentation that began in the Mississippian Period,
i.e., more than 330 million years ago (). Finally, there is absolutely no evidence that either the
Mississippi River delta or the deltas of any of the world&s
major rivers originated simultaneously during a worldwide
catastrophic flood, as Allen () proposes.
serious for Morris and Parker&s () &age of the Earth& is the simple and obvious fact
that the age of the Mississippi River delta does not equal the
age of the Earth. Even if Allen&s () age of 4500 to 5000 years for the delta were correct, it would
still represent only the age of the delta and would not support
Morris and Parker&s () contention that the Earth is very young. Thus, not only is
their &age& of 5000 years for the Earth meaningless,
but also their logic defies reason.
(, no. 28)
This age of the
Earth is referenced by Morris and Parker () to a report by Wilson and others
(), who estimated the present rate of petroleum seepage into the
marine environment at about 0.6 million metric tons per year. The
value of 50 million years listed by Morris and Parker
() as an indicated age of the Earth apparently comes from the
following statement by Wilson and others ():
amount of oil available for seepage reflected by these reserve
estimates is about 2 & 1014
barrels or
nearly 3 & 1013
metric tons.
This volume of oil alone could have sustained a seepage rate of
(, p. 864)
Morris and
Parker (), however, have chosen to ignore the remainder of the discussion
by Wilson and his colleagues:
However, the
total oil available for seepage and the time span would be
substantially greater since the reserve estimates &
include less than half of the offshore area that is considered to
be seepage-prone. Moreover, the above reserve figures do not
include oil from tar sands and oil shales, which are also
potential seepage sources. & (The) inclusion of all
potential sources would sustain the seepage rate of 0.6 & 106
metric tons per
year for a period of time equivalent to the Tertiary and much of
the Mesozoic & when a large percentage of the off-shore
oil was being generated. (, p. 864)
Wilson and
others () also note that there is no basis for presuming that the seepage
rate has been constant and that their calculation was done only
to determine whether or not their estimate of the seepage rate is
reasonable. Recall that the present ocean basins of the world are
relatively young, ranging in age from Holocene to Jurassic. The
shelves of the continents, where most off-shore oil is found,
also are primarily Mesozoic and younger. Thus, the calculations
and conclusions of Wilson and others () are consistent with what is known about the age of the rocks in
which offshore oil is generated and found.
Morris and
Parker () have blatantly misrepresented legitimate scientific data and
conclusions. The present rate of offshore oil seepage cannot be
used to calculate an age for the Earth.
The reference
for this age of the Earth is a short news item in
Engineering News, which, in its entirety, reads as
occurs in nature. Dr. Darlean Hoffman and Francine Lawrence at
the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory have chemically isolated
about 8 & 10-15
plutonium-224 [sic] from 85 kg. of bastnasite ore from the
Mountain Pass, California, mine of Molybdenum Corporation of
America. Jack McWherter and Frank Rourke at the Knolls Atomic
Power Laboratory, Schenectady, New York, identified the isotope
by mass spectrometry.
Detection of this relatively short-lived isotope (80 million
years) may indicate that synthesis of heavy elements was still
occurring at the time of formation of the Solar System.
discovery of natural plutonium-244 was significant partly because
it was the heaviest isotope ever found in nature but mostly
because it gave scientists a valuable clue about the time of
synthesis of the heavy elements. The reasoning is as follows. If
the radioactive isotope plutonium-244 was synthesized at the time
of formation of the Solar System, then, with a half-life of 80
million years, the 8 & 10-15 g
represents the undecayed remainder of 1057 g14,
or slightly more than 2 lb & a conceivable amount. On the
other hand, if the plutonium-244 was synthesized at the time of
formation of the Galaxy, about 12 & 2 billion years ago,
then the original amount would have to be 1.14 & 1031 g
or 1.26 & 1025 tons!
Thus, the discovery of plutonium-244 in nature suggests that it
may have been synthesized as the Solar System formed rather than
much earlier.
Morris and Parker () have listed as an 80-million-year indicated age of the Earth is
simply the half-life of plutonium-244. Clearly, they do not
understand either the content or the significance of the
discovery reported in the brief news article they cite as their
source of documentation.
This age is
attributed to Barnes (). Barnes () summarizes and supports the arguments developed first in 1862
by Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), who calculated that the
Earth could be no less than 20 million and no more than 400
million years old (). Kelvin&s calculations were based on the presumption that
the Earth was cooling from an initial white-hot molten state, and
his calculations determined how long it would take for the
observed geothermal gradient to reach its present configuration.
Kelvin also calculated that the Sun is probably no more than 100
million years old and almost certainly no more than 500 million
years old (). These upper limits for the age of the Sun were based on his
estimate of the available supply of gravitational energy, which,
he concluded, would not last many millions of years longer.
Nuclear reactions, which we now know are responsible for the
Sun&s fires, were unknown in Kelvin&s time. The value
of 24 million years, preferred by Barnes ()
and listed by Morris and Parker () as the age of the Earth, is attributed by Barnes to Kelvin but
was, in fact, first published by
King (). Lord Kelvin (), however, agreed with King&s value and adopted it as a
likely upper limit for the age of the Earth.
Kelvin and
several noted geologists, including Chamberlain
(), feuded over the age of the Earth for more than 35 years
because the geologists, basing their estimates on the rates of
observable processes, felt strongly that Kelvin&s estimates
were much too low. The dispute was resolved in 1903, when
Rutherford and Soddy () first determined the amount of heat generated by radioactive
decay. Rutherford and Soddy readily appreciated the significance
of their discovery for cosmologic hypotheses:
(the energy from radioactive decay) must be taken into account in
cosmical physics. The maintenance of solar energy, for example,
no longer presents any fundamental difficulty if the internal
energy of the component elements is considered to be available,
i.e., if processes of subatomic change are going on.
(, p. 591)
Subsequent
measurements of the amount of radioactive uranium, thorium, and
potassium in the Earth and in meteorites have shown that all the
heat flowing from the interior of the Earth outward can easily be
accounted for by radioactive decay, although gravitational energy
and latent heat of crystallization probably are also important.
Barnes (), in championing Kelvin&s
calculations, states:
Some scientists
claim that radioactivity in the earth would alter this limit
upward, but none has given any clear analysis of how much it
would alter Kelvin&s value. Kelvin was well aware of
radioactivity, as is demonstrated by the fact that he wrote
several papers on it. That did not appear to him to alter the
problem at all. He was working from an actual measured thermal
flux gradient and a knowledge of thermal conductivity of the
crustal rocks and was still confident that he had shown that the
earth&s age does not exceed 24 million years.
statement is simply untrue. There is a large volume of literature
on the subject of the thermal state and history of the E
most beginning geology textbooks treat the subject. The remainder
of Barnes& paragraph also is wrong. Kelvin&s last
published remarks on the age-of-the-Earth from cooling
calculations were in 1899, four years before Rutherford and Soddy
published their findings of the energy available from radioactive
decay. While it is
true that Kelvin published several papers on radioactivity, these
papers were unrelated to his age-of-the-earth calculations.
Barnes implies that Kelvin considered the matter and concluded
that it was unimportant. In fact, Kelvin privately admitted that
his hypothesis regarding the age of the Earth had been disproved
by the discovery of the enormous amount of energy available from
within the atom (), although he never recanted. Kelvin apparently realized that he
had lost the argument and simply gave up, turning his energies to
other matters until his death in 1907.
pre-20th-century history of the various attempts by scientists
and philosophers to estimate the age of the Earth is a
fascinating subject that the reader may wish to explore in more
detail (, ). Probably no estimate caused more controversy than
Kelvin&s, and his role in this debate, which lasted for
nearly half a century, is the subject of a recent monograph
(). Kelvin&s calculations are interesting from an historical
point of view, but for nearly all of the 20th century they have
been known to be wrong.
In a recent
creationist monograph, Slusher and Gamwell () consider the contribution of radioactive heat to the problem of
a cooling Earth and conclude that even with radioactivity as a
source of heat, the calculations lead to the conclusion that the
Earth is young:
cooling times appear quite small (thousands of years) if the
initial temperature of the earth was on the order of that for a
habitable planet for any of the models. Even for initial
temperatures as high as that for an initially molten earth, the
cooling times are vastly less than evolutionist estimates. It
would seem that the earth is vastly younger than the old earth
demanded by the evolutionists. Thus, the evolutionary hypothesis
would seem to be a false hypothesis for explaining things.
Their treatment
of this important and complex problem, however, is inexcusably
naive. They have neglected important sources of heat within the
Earth, selected inappropriate depth distributions of radioactive
elements, and ignored completely the loss of heat by convection
in the mantle. Before discussing the flaws in their conclusions
further, I here explain briefly some of the factors that
scientists must consider when analyzing the Earth&s thermal
history, and review some current thinking on the
The solution to
the problem of the Earth&s thermal history consists of an
evaluation of the relative importance of both the various sources
of heat in the Earth and the several ways in which this heat is
transferred from depth to the surface. The problem is complicated
by several factors: (1) the early events in the formation of the
Earth, many of which would generate large amounts of heat, are
(2) the heat generated by radioactivity
decreases exp (3) the distribution of
radioactive elements within
the E (4) the temperature gradient in the
Earth can be measured for only the
of the relevant physical properties of the mantle, such as
conductivity, specific heat, and viscosity,
and (6) the pattern of mantle convection is poorly
several important sources of heat in the Earth. One is primordial
heat, i.e., heat left over from the formation of the Earth.
Although the Earth probably accreted cold, radioactivity,
gravitational energy from compaction, and segregation of the
iron-nickel core probably generated enough heat to raise the
temperature of the Earth to near the melting point within 100 to
200 million years of its formation (,
). In addition, the heat from impacts of large meteorites during
the period when the Earth was still sweeping up large amounts of
material from its orbital path generated large amounts of heat
and may have resulted in the melting of the outer 100 km or so.
Much of this primordial heat has not yet escaped from the
A second source
of heat is radioactivity. This heat is generated by the
radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium contained in
the rocks of the Earth. Although the exact distribution of these
radioactive elements within the Earth is not well known, there is
no problem in constructing reasonable Earth models that attribute
most or even all of the heat now flowing outward from the Earth
to radioactive decay. For example, all the heat required could be
generated by the uranium, thorium, and potassium contained in a
granitic crust only 22 km thick (). Likewise, if we assume that the Earth has a bulk composition
similar to that of the primitive meteorites called carbonaceous
chondrites, then the heat produced by radioactivity would about
equal the present average heat flux from the mantle
(). These two examples, of course, are oversimplifications of a
problem of vastly greater complexity, but they do illustrate that
radioactivity is probably the single most important mechanism of
heat generation in the Earth today. Because radioactive elements
decay exponentially over time, radioactive decay would have
generated even more heat in the past. For example, 4.5 billion
years ago, the rate of heat generation from the decay of uranium,
thorium, and potassium in the Earth would have been nearly 6
times the present rate ().
addition to
primordial heat and heat from radioactivity, contraction of the
Earth due to cooling and gravitational-energy release as the core
grows may also be important contributors to the Earth&s
thermal budget.
importance as heat sources are the mechanisms by which the Earth
loses heat. One is conduction, which involves the transfer of
kinetic energy at the atomic this is the
same means by which heat is transferred through the bottom of a
cooking pan from the burner to the food. The conductivity of
rocks, however, is rather poor, and conduction is not
particularly efficient. For example, heat generated 4.5 billion
years ago at a depth of a few hundred kilometers would just now
be reaching the surface if conduction were the only mechanism of
heat transfer within the Earth.
important mechanism of heat loss from the Earth is convection,
which involves the transfer of heat by motion of the hot material
itself. Convection is highly efficient and, to a large degree,
self-regulating. When a liquid is heated in a pan, for example,
the more heat is supplied, the more vigorously the liquid
convects, and the faster heat is lost. Calculations show that the
rocks of the mantle can be expected to s the
more heat is supplied, the less viscous the mantle becomes, the
faster it convects, and the more heat is transferred to the
There is little
doubt that the Earth&s mantle is convecting. The evidence
from continental drift, sea-floor spreading, and the bathymetry
of the sea floor is conclusive. Calculations also show that
mantle convection is both physically possible and probable.
Although at first it may seem impossible for solid rocks to flow,
both theory and laboratory experiments show that they can and do,
although the mechanism differs somewhat from that involved in the
flow of liquid. Estimates of the present rate of mantle
convection indicate that the motion is on the order of a
millimeter or so per year.
Studies of the
thermal budget of the Earth consist of balancing the various heat
sources against heat loss through convection and conduction,
taking into consideration what is known about the history and
physical properties of the Earth. Current studies indicate that
of the total geothermal heat flux of 38 & 1012 W,
about 63 percent or 24 & 1012 W
is lost from the mantle. Only 24 percent (9 & 1012 W)
is lost from the continental lithosphere, and perhaps 5 & 1012
may be lost from the core by plumes of hot material rising from
near the core-mantle boundary ().
The heat flow
per unit area from the continents is about the same as from the
oceans, although both local and regional variations occur.
Because the continents cover only about a quarter of the
Earth&s surface, about three-fourths of the total heat flow
is through the ocean basins. Virtually all the heat lost from the
ocean basins comes from the mantle and is brought close to the
surface by convection. About 30 percent of the total global heat
loss is at the midoceanic rises, where new crust is forming by
the injection and eruption of magma (, ). Although conduction plays a role in transferring some heat
through the oceanic crust, convection is the dominant mechanism
bringing heat from depth. In contrast, heat loss from the
continents is primarily by conduction. Of this heat, about
two-thirds is generated by radioactivity within the continents
themselves (); the remainder is brought to the base of the continental
lithosphere from the mantle by convection, where it is then
conducted to the surface. Thus, both convection and conduction
play roles in the Earth& however, on a
global scale, most of the heat lost from the Earth is through the
ocean basins, primarily by convection in the mantle.
radioactivity is probably the dominant source of the heat flowing
from the Earth&s surface, some of the heat may be
primordial. Recent studies (for example, , , ) indicate that the Earth may be cooling at a rate of 5 to
6&C per 100 million years and that primordial heat may
constitute 30 to 40 percent of the heat now being lost from the
What, then, of
the conclusion of Slusher and Gamwell () that consideration of the Earth&s heat budget indicates
that the Earth is very young? They have reached this conclusion
by ignoring most of what is known about the chemistry, physics,
and history of the Earth. First, they begin with the erroneous
assumption that the only heat-loss mechanism for the Earth is
they completely ignore convection. This assumption
would be excusable only had their paper been written before the
mid-1960s, before there was sound evidence that the Earth&s
mantle was convecting.
Second, Slusher
and Gamwell () seemingly are unaware that the Earth&s surface includes
both continents and ocean basins, each of which have different
compositions, distinct physical characteristics, and participate
in global plate tectonics in quite different ways. They take no
account of the differences in either heat generation or loss
between these vastly different regimes of the Earth.
Third, they use
inappropriate depth distributions for the radioactive elements.
Only by adopting the unrealistic assumption that most radioactive
isotopes are concentrated in the outer 10 km or so of the crust
do their analyses yield cooling times of &thousands of
years& rather than millions of years. Although it is true
that uranium, thorium, and potassium tend to be enriched in the
Earth&s crust, there is every reason to think that the
mantle also con their concentrations may be
small, but the mass of the mantle is so great that significant
heat production results.
thermal analysis of the Earth cannot yield an estimate of its
age. The age of the Earth, determined independently by
radiometric dating, is one of the boundary conditions that must
be satisfied it is not a result. There are
simply far too many things about the history and interior of the
Earth that are poorly known and must be estimated. For example,
even before convection was known to be an important factor in
heat loss from the Earth, scientists were able to devise
reasonable thermal models for the Earth that attributed all the
heat generated to radioactive decay and all the heat lost to
conduction. This was done simply by choosing reasonable
distributions and concentrations of radioactive elements that
yielded a balance between generation and loss and preserved the
observed geothermal
gradient. As new knowledge about mantle convection and the early
history of the Earth accumulated, these models were changed to
account for the new findings. There is as yet no definitive
thermal model for the Earth, and it is absurd to expect that any
such model can be used to determine the Earth&s age. Thus,
the supposed determination of the Earth&s age from thermal
calculations by Slusher and Gamwell () is totally without merit.
(, no. 41)
Morris and
Parker () list an age of the Earth of 5 million years based on the
accumulation of calcareous ooze on the sea floor. The reference
for this age is a report by Ewing and others
The report by Ewing and his coworkers describes a study of the
sediment distribution on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. They found that
the sediment there is quite thin and concluded that at the
present rate of sedimentation, the sediment could have
accumulated in about 2 to 5 million years. This short time was
puzzling to them because the ocean basins were then thought to be
very old & their report was published before the theory of
plate tectonics and sea-floor spreading was formulated, tested,
and confirmed. We now know that the midoceanic ridges are very
yo in fact, their age is zero at the ridge
crests. The 2 to 5 million years calculated by Ewing and his
coworkers is about right for that part of the ridge surveyed by
them. Note that Ewing and his coworkers did not calculate an age
for the Earth, nor did they produce or describe any data with
which such a calculation could be made.
(, ) lists an &indicated age of Earth& of 100,000 years
from &formation of carbon-14 on meteorites&; he
references a report by Boeckl (). Boeckl&s report, however, was about tektites, not
meteorites. Tektites are small globules of glass whose origin has
been the subject of much debate but is now thought to be from
meteoritic impacts on the Earth. Boeckl () was attempting to establish a cosmic-ray-exposure-age for these
objects to determine their residence time in space. To do so, he
terrestrial age for the tektites of 10,000 years to make his
calculations. Boeckl did not calculate an age for the Earth, nor
did he produce any data that co Morris
(, ) even has the number wrong. It is interesting to note that this
&age& does not appear in the recent list of Morris
and Parker () (), and so perhaps even they realize its
absurdity.
10 &Evolutionist&
is a term used by creationists to include all scientists who
disagree with them.
dipole is a magnet with one north and one south pole. A simple
bar magnet is one type of dipole.
12 Barnes () asserts that this record is unreliable, but he is wrong
again. I have refuted Barnes& claim on this matter in
detail in another paper ().
comes from the decay of uranium and thorium in rocks,
whereas 3He
is primordial. Both are &produced& by escaping from
the crust and mantle into the atmosphere.
14 Remember
that radioactive decay is exponential, so in calculating back to
the original amount of plutonium, the quantity doubles every 80
million years.
is curious that Barnes does so.
Earth was millions of years old, a view contrary to that of
Barnes and his creationist colleagues ().
and Parker cite the Bulletin of the Geophysical Society of
America, but there is
it is the Geological
Society of America.
by Jon Fleming, 2005: Dalrymple&s figure for the area of
the Moon is four times larg apparently
someone used the diameter instead of the radius in the area
calculation. The final result, a 4.1 cm thick layer on the Moon,
is not affected by this error. Since his area of the Earth
(5.5&1015 ft2) is
correct, his yearly influx per square centimeter on the
Moon (2&109
g/cm2/year)
is also correct.
g/cm2/year&4.55&109 years]/(2.24 g/cm3) = 4.1 cm}