Best postive scientific evidence for an old universe/ earth

[anochria]

Ok, this is intended to be a parrallel to the other thread I started, "Best positive scientific evidence for a young earth".

Here I'd like to hear people's thoughts on evidence for an old earth.

I'll start off with what is in my opinion the 4 best evidences of an old cosmos and earth:

Universe:

1. Expansion rate of the universe
2. Cosmic background radiation temperatures
3. Stellar Burning
4. Radioactive Decay

Earth:

1. Radiometric Dating
2. Ice-core samples
3. Mitochondrial DNA, etc.
4. Tree Rings


Presumably, many of you of the YE persuasion are familiar with these kinds of "evidences". I'd like to hear why you're doubtful of these age-indicating techniques.

[mattrose]

As you're probably aware, the 'universe' arguments won't be very convincing for many YECists because the "E" stands for Earth and many YEC's DO believe in a very old universe.

[AaronBDisney]

Just how in the world do 'tree rings' give evidence for an old earth. You have a tree with millions of rings you know of or something? The oldest one they've found just a had a few thousand. Also, trees can have double ring years.

Plus, the dating methods are horribly flawed. Living penguins were dated as being 26,000 years old for pete's sake.

I find it interesting also, that there are tons and tons of trees running through different coal seams. Did the tree just stand there for millions of years through the Carboniferous era while coal formed around it?

[anochria]

I hope to respond when I get back from camping, but I have a quesiton for some of you here:

Until now, I've never encountered someone who held that the universe was old but the earth young. Could someone unpack what that looks like to them scientifically and biblically?

[mattrose]

I hope to respond when I get back from camping, but I have a quesiton for some of you here:

Until now, I've never encountered someone who held that the universe was old but the earth young. Could someone unpack what that looks like to them scientifically and biblically?

This is a fairly common position within YECism actually. It is based on the biblical description of the creation week, the idea that the universe is expanding, the idea that gravity distorts time, etc. There are a few different theories posited by YECists in regards to how this works. One such theory can be found in a short book by Dr. Russell Humphrey's entitled "Starlight and Time." He'll take you step by step through his theory which creates an ancient universe and a less than 10,000 year old earth.

[steve]

As for the biblical considerations, Genesis 1:16 says "[He made] the stars also." Since this is mentioned in connection with the sun and the moon, on the fourth day, I once thought that this was affirming that the stars (and, by implication, the universe) were no older than the earth itself. Some years ago, it occurred to me that this statement about the stars may be something of an "aside"—simply pointing out that the stars (whenever they may have come into existence) were also made by God.

[anochria]

Thanks for the info, guys.

Steve, I see the verses concerning the fourth day to be describing the final appearance of the sun, moon, and stars from the point of view of an observer on earth. Are you saying that you agree with that position?

In other words, the creation of the actual sun, moon, and stars was before day 1, when God created 'the heavens'.

So, the text of day four could read like this:

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God [had] made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He [had] also made the stars. 17 God [had] set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Paranthesis mine.

The "let there be", then, refers to those bodies becoming visibile to the earth and finally useful for their intended purposes. This comports with the majority opinion on the conditions of the early earth- an atmosphere going from opaque to transparent after the first beginnings of life.

[steve]

I don't see any reason to rule out this idea.

[darinhouston]

I hope to respond when I get back from camping, but I have a quesiton for some of you here:

Until now, I've never encountered someone who held that the universe was old but the earth young. Could someone unpack what that looks like to them scientifically and biblically?

This is a fairly common position within YECism actually. It is based on the biblical description of the creation week, the idea that the universe is expanding, the idea that gravity distorts time, etc. There are a few different theories posited by YECists in regards to how this works. One such theory can be found in a short book by Dr. Russell Humphrey's entitled "Starlight and Time." He'll take you step by step through his theory which creates an ancient universe and a less than 10,000 year old earth.

Hugh Ross has extensive responses to Starlight and Time.

One thing that is pretty difficult to square with a young earth theory -- my father in law is a geologist and I work with lots of geologists some of whom have created very complex reservoir simulators based on and highly dependent upon conventional earth mechanics theories.

There's one thing about the oil business -- they could CARE LESS about theology or the philosophical consequences of a particular theory and are only interested in finding a model that WORKS for them. I don't know a lot about the geophysics but they sure do, and from what I have been required to understand to do my patent work in the area, it is clear that they rely heavily on their understanding of essentially uniform sedimentary processes and make assumptions about continuities from subterranean rivers and their deposits and inferr large field structures from local phenomena. If the sedimentary and long-time processes they depend on weren't true, then it's pretty clear that they would not be finding oil in some of the areas that rely heavily on these predictive models. Punching a hole in the earth costs millions of dollars (usually many millions) and they punch many of them -- they can't afford to hold onto a pet theory. It's amazing how little data they have from a few exploratory wells and how much they have to infer from these theories and assumptions -- they have to go with what works, and time and again, the conventional models do seem to work. That tells me a lot more about the age of the earth as implied by conventional geophysics than the theories (reasonable or not) of academics (theological or not).

[darinhouston]

By the way, there are geologists who are OECs, but they tend to be academics -- I've not seen any practicing petroleum geologists or reservoir geophycicists who would would do anything but laugh at a young earth theory. And, believe me -- they entertain any such thoughts to find any model that would give them better predictability in their work.