The Earth is a Bit Older than 6,000 Years

(image credit Astronomy Picture of the Day).

Via Pharyngula, some concrete ammo to use in discussions with folks who believe in the literal creation story from Genesis.  Good science should trump the bad "facts" of young earth creationism, and we do our kids a disservice when we allow stupidity and/or ignorance to reign.

Geoffrey Pearce sent me this argument he uses with creationists, and I thought others might find it useful, too:

I am regularly approached by young Earth creationists (yes, even in the bedlam of sin that is Montreal...) both on the street and at home. If I have the time I try to engage them on the age of Earth, since Earth is something whose existence them and I agree upon. They will tell me that Earth is somewhere between 6,000 - 10,000 years old, and, when prompted, that the rest of the universe is the same age as well. I have taken the approach of responding to this assertion by pulling out a print of the far side of the Moon [see above].

I cannot tell you how handy this is! Once they've had a good look I usually point out that almost all of the craters were formed by asteroids smashing into the planet, and that the Moon has over 250 craters with a diameter of 100 km or more. After explaining that Earth is just as likely to be struck by large asteroids as the Moon (is more likely to be struck, in-fact, due to its greater gravitational well), I then ask them to consider what their time-scale entails: that Earth should be struck every couple of decades by an asteroid capable of completely ejecting an area about the size of New Hampshire (not to pick on New Hampshire). Since such an event has never been observed and there are no well-preserved impact structures anywhere close to this size range, I then suggest to them that the only sensible conclusion is that Earth is much older than they had thought.

I have nothing to add.  Except I'd better fold up a copy of that photo and keep it in my wallet.

   

Eta Caninae and Creationism

Eta Carinae (image credit National Geographic)

From the science blog Pharyngula, P. Z. Myers has been running some posts from readers on the topic Why I am an Atheist.

One particular post I liked for its astronomy angle came in from Michael Baizley, in which he raises an interesting conundrum for proponents of the young earth theory (i.e., 6,000 year old):

Increasing scientific knowledge did nothing to quell my views on god's creation. Seeing as my favorite star [see NOTE below] was eight thousand light years away, knowing that a light year is how far light travels in a year, knowing that my favorite star was at least eight thousand years old - and most likely far, far older - only made this doubt of god's creation grow. Especially in a world where creationists and fundamentalists, a great part of the United States population (40%, as late), tend to believe the world is six thousand years old.

If my favorite star were eight thousand light years away, and the oldest known sources of light were over thirteen billion light years away, what was the rationale for believing that the world [was] six thousand years old?

NOTE. In doing a bit or research, I'm suspecting that Michaels' favorite star is Eta Caninae, about to blow its stack in the photo above.

See also my previous post on Organ Cave, WV, where science and creationism also collide in documented measurements of natural phenomena.

 

Organ Cave, WV

 In my younger days I was an avid caver, and still keep up somewhat with the science and with the sport. I’m at the place in my life where I’m taking my grandkids to see things I am interested in, just to expose them to lots of stuff.

I was looking at the web site for Organ Cave in Greenbrier County, WV for a possible trip to a commercial (tourist) cave. Organ Cave is in the heart of West Virginia cave region and is a huge system, ranking 29th, plus or minus, on the list of the world's longest mapped caves. Plus it contains saltpeter mining relics from the American Civil War.  Saltpeter (potassium nitrate) is a key ingredient of gunpowder.

So, historically and geologically, it is a significant place. 

But it seems to be in the hands of a dogmatic owner.  Because on the cave’s web site I see the statement “We are closed Sunday in honor of the Lord’s Day,” and think “Hmmm?”, that’s kinda odd for a tourist attraction.  But different folks have different religious rules for living, that's OK.

But--and at this my scientific mind bristled--further down on the page I see the statement (in red on the web site to better stand out): “All our tours are based on creation using the King James version of the Bible.”

Now, when I was in college I was actually in the Organ Cave System--I went caving there via a different entrance (called Lipps # 2 Cave), whose passages are characterized by large trunk channels. However, I have not been to the cave to take the commercial tour via the Organ Cave entrance. 

I wonder what that statement above actually means on the tour? Cave guides everywhere tell their groups that cave formations are known to grow at the approximate rate of 1” per century.  This is a documented fact from observation and historic records. 

So might the guide then shine his light upwards and say, "See that big stalactite hanging down from the ceiling?  See that line on it about 5 feet up from the bottom?  That's where the stalactite originally ended when God created it--right there--according to the Genesis story, about 6000 years ago.  This stalactite has grown about 1 inch per century--about 5 feet in length--since God created it." 

Science and religion can co-exist, but not when religion refuses to accept demonstrable facts, such as geologic time or evidence for evolution.

Anyway, thought you’d be amused.  And I MUST go there and take the tour (I will be respectful).