The debate over the age of the earth is significant because it profoundly intersects both physical and spiritual reality. A literal reading of Scripture places the beginning about 6000 years ago, while almost all scientists claim the planet is several billion years old. Where we land on this key scientific question has tremendous spiritual implications. (1Ti 6:20-21)
As in most debates, our ideology, world view or general narrative determines how we interpret reality (Mt 6:22-23), and this particular debate appears to be no different. Young Earth Creationists use a consistent, well-established biblical hermeneutic, respecting the Creation narrative in Genesis at face value. Old Earth proponents tend to align with Philosophical Naturalism, that Earth and all life forms have arisen from random, purely natural causes over long periods of time.
While there is plenty of scientific data available to help us estimate the age of the earth (Ro 1:20), each world view finds ways to interpret the data according to its own general narrative. The consequences of allowing the data here to actually fundamentally change the way one perceives reality are indeed profound. (2Th 2:10-12)
The stakes are perhaps highest for the atheist: accepting a young earth eliminates Darwinian Evolution as a plausible explanation for our existence, leading us to wrestle with Divinity defining a moral standard and holding us all accountable for our actions. This is so offensive and unpalatable to hardened atheists it blinds their minds, literally rendering them incapable of rationally evaluating the facts. (2Co 4:4) So, when we discover soft tissue in dinosaur bones, for example, any explanation at all, even if it’s a wild stretch, satisfies sufficiently to dismiss the evidence. (2Pe 3:5)
Yet decades of extensive Origin of Life research now demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that life could not possibly have evolved naturally, exposing Darwinian Evolution as an elaborate hoax and eliminating any rational basis for Philosophical Naturalism. (Ps 139:14) Consequently, an old-earth interpretation of the scientific data no longer supports any rational world view (Ps 102:25); we should all be free to consider faith-based, young-earth interpretations of the scientific data without being mocked and ridiculed.
Even so, many Christians depart from a biblical hermeneutic in Genesis to accommodate an old earth, hoping to be respected by the general scientific community. However, in doing so they unwittingly undermine the very foundations of the Christian faith: that God actually made Man in His own image from the dust of the earth; that He actually formed Woman from the rib of Man (1Ti 2:13); that God actually rested on seventh literal 24-hour day of Creation and sanctified it (Ex 20:11); that Adam actually brought sin into the world by eating of the forbidden fruit (14), and death by sin, actually passing spiritual death on to all of us, who are all his descendants (Ro 5:12); that God actually cursed the ground for Man’s sake, and prophesied that the Seed of Woman will bruise His heal while bruising the head of the serpent who deceived them. Allegorizing the Creation story leads one to presume all of these foundational historical events didn’t actually happen as they are recorded, but that they merely evolved over millennia as pre-historic humanoids passed on oral traditions trying to make sense of their chaotic world.
Yet Jesus Christ Himself evidently accepted the Genesis account as literally true (Mt 19:4-6), as did His apostles. (1Ti 2:13-14)
This debate is surely not without consequence. If we don’t take the writings of Moses at face value, how are we to believe the words of Christ? (Jn 5:46-47) Grounding ourselves in the facts and understanding how and why they are interpreted by each side, will help us be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks of us a reason for our hope with meekness and respect. (1Pe 3:15)
The Gap Theory of Creation attempts to allow for an old Earth while maintaining a strictly biblical hermeneutic in interpreting Genesis. The obvious problem with this theory is that the time gap proposed occurs before the existence of light itself, as well as the rest of the universe and all life forms, so it does not explain the fossil record or allow for an earlier civilization. All it might account for is the age of rocks, yet these can more easily be understood as having been created with the appearance of age, like everything else God created.
The Day-Age Theory of Creation attempts to allow for an old Earth while adopting a metaphorical or poetic interpretation of Genesis. Like the Gap Theory, this view also suffers from obvious incoherence: Earth before light; plants before the sun, moon and stars; birds springing forth from the oceans before any land animals or bugs, etc. The day sequence being so out-of-order from the accepted scientific understanding leads one to conclude a poetic narrative is merely the fruit of early man’s imagination, not the inspired Word of God. And once we allegorize Genesis, there’s nothing stopping us from allegorizing the rest of scripture, dismissing it all as insightful mythology.
Here’s an article about soft tissue persisting in specimens claimed to be 500 million years old.
Each of the various methods used to estimate the age of the earth depend upon several key assumptions:
[1] The sample began to exist in a pure state, with no decomposition or degeneration,
[2] The rate of decay has been constant over time, that nothing in the environment has altered the rate of decay.
[3] The system is closed; it has not been compromised by matter or energy being introduced or removed from the sample.
Each of these assumptions may be challenged as inappropriate or unrealistic in order to account for a young Earth.
Here is a link to a ChatGPT discussion on this topic.
The amount of moon dust is, I think, very good evidence of a young earth. If we assume a uniform average rate of space dust accumulation (which is generous since it is likely lower now than its historical average) and no dust at the beginning (giving the benefit of the doubt), the moon is only 40-50 thousand years old. To be 4.5 billion years old, natural processes must have removed 99.9999% of the dust. The only proposal offered is that meteorites have knocked off all the dust, which is evidently absurd.
Note the following discussion with Grok:
Tim: What is the average depth of the surface dust on the moon?
Answer
The average depth of the surface dust on the moon is approximately 4-5 cm (about 1.6-2 inches).
Tim: Based on the current rate of accumulation of dust on the moon, how long would it take to accumulate that much dust?
Answer
The current rate of lunar dust accumulation is approximately 1 mm per 1,000 years. To accumulate a depth of 4-5 cm (40-50 mm), it would take between 40,000 to 50,000 years.
Tim: Why isn’t this considered evidence of a young earth?
Answer
This isn’t considered evidence of a young Earth for several reasons:
-1- Dust Accumulation Rate: The rate of dust accumulation on the Moon is based on current observations and might not have been constant over geological time. The Moon’s surface has been exposed to space for billions of years, and the rate could have varied due to changes in meteoritic activity, solar wind, or other cosmic phenomena.
-2- Geological Processes: The Moon, like Earth, has undergone geological processes that can redistribute or remove dust. Impact cratering, for instance, can either add to or remove dust from the surface.
-3- Dating Methods: Multiple independent methods, like radiometric dating of lunar rocks brought back by the Apollo missions, consistently suggest the Moon (and by extension the Earth) is billions of years old. These methods are well-established and cross-validated across different scientific disciplines.
-4- Comparative Planetology: The study of other bodies in the solar system also supports an old age for the solar system. For example, Mars, with its own dust accumulations, does not contradict the billions-of-years-old timeline.
-5- Scientific Consensus: The age of the Earth and Moon is supported by a broad scientific consensus based on a large body of evidence from various fields, including astronomy, geology, and physics. The lunar dust accumulation rate is just one piece of a much larger puzzle.
In summary, while the rate of dust accumulation on the Moon might seem to suggest a younger age at face value, when considered in the broader context of planetary science and geology, it does not challenge the established understanding of the Earth’s age.
Tim: So, supposing the rate of moon dust accumulation hasn’t changed over time, processes like micrometeorite impacts, solar wind, and geological activity would need to remove dust 99.999% of the moon dust?
Answer
If we assume the rate of moon dust accumulation has been constant over time, then yes, processes like micrometeorite impacts, solar wind, and geological activity would need to remove or redistribute approximately 99.9% of the dust to account for the observed 4-5 cm depth over 4.5 billion years. Here’s the calculation:
Constant accumulation rate: 1 mm per 1,000 years.
Over 4.5 billion years, this would yield 4,500,000 mm or 4,500 meters of dust if there were no removal processes.
Given the observed depth of 4-5 cm (or 40-50 mm):
Percentage of dust removed = ((4,500,000 mm – 50 mm) / 4,500,000 mm) * 100 = approximately 99.99%
This calculation shows how significant the role of dust removal processes must be to explain the discrepancy between expected accumulation and observed depth. However, the reality is likely more complex:
The rate of accumulation might not have been constant.
The processes affecting dust are dynamic and can vary over different geological epochs.
Cratering can both add and remove dust, and larger impacts might excavate significant amounts of regolith.
Therefore, while the calculation suggests a high degree of dust removal, it’s an oversimplification. The actual mechanisms are more nuanced, involving both accumulation and loss over geological timescales.
Tim: So, it seems that we have established that at the current rate of accumulation of dust on the moon that the average depth of the dust on the moon should be 4500 meters, or 2.78 miles. I don’t see how moving this dust around solves the problem of how to account for this dust, which is not there, neither do I see how periodic disturbances to the lunar surface caused by the moon itself to be a satisfactory explanation. The only explanation that appears to be remotely feasible is meteor impact. But even this is not expected to remove much of the lunar dust and might even add to it. Am I understanding this correctly?
Answer
Yes, you’re articulating a common point of confusion regarding lunar dust accumulation:
Expected Depth vs. Observed: If we consider a constant accumulation rate of 1 mm per 1,000 years over 4.5 billion years, we would expect about 4,500 meters (2.78 miles) of dust. However, this simplistic calculation doesn’t reflect reality due to several factors:
— Non-Constant Accumulation: The rate of dust production from impacts would not have been constant. Early in the Solar System’s history, during the Late Heavy Bombardment, impacts were far more frequent, potentially adding dust at a higher rate than today.
Meteor Impacts:
— Ejection: Only a small fraction of dust would be ejected into space. Most impacts result in dust being redistributed across the lunar surface.
Addition: Impacts also add new material to the Moon, including dust from the impactor and pulverized lunar rock, which can counteract some of the “removal” effects.
Other Factors Not Accounting for Mass Loss:
— Redistribution: Moving dust around doesn’t reduce the total volume but can change local depths or bury dust under new layers.
— Sputtering by Solar Wind: This process chips away at the surface at an atomic level but isn’t significant enough to explain large-scale dust removal over short time frames. It’s more about long-term erosion.
— Geological Activity: The Moon doesn’t have processes like tectonic activity to remove dust in the way Earth does, so this isn’t a factor for mass removal.
Theoretical Gaps:
Dust Dynamics: The Moon’s dust is part of a dynamic system where dust is being produced, moved, altered, and sometimes lost over geological time.
Current Understanding: While meteor impacts are the most direct mechanism for potential dust removal, the combination of all these factors over billions of years means the actual depth and distribution of dust are the result of a complex balance.
In essence, you’re correct that straightforward explanations like meteor impacts alone don’t fully account for the discrepancy between expected and observed dust depths. The situation is more complex, involving a long-term equilibrium of dust production, redistribution, and minimal loss, which doesn’t align with simple linear accumulation models. This complexity is why the observed depth of lunar regolith doesn’t match straightforward calculations based on current accumulation rates.
Tim: But none of these nuances appear to give us a calculation for an older moon. If accumulate rates were higher in the past, that just makes the problem worse.
Answer
Let’s address the point about not seeing a reasonable explanation for the removal of lunar dust in the context of an older Moon:
Current Models: The current understanding is that the Moon is approximately 4.5 billion years old, based on multiple lines of evidence beyond just dust accumulation. Here’s how we account for the observed dust:
Meteor Impacts:
Ejection: Meteor impacts can eject dust into space, but this is a minor effect relative to the total amount of dust.
Gardening: More commonly, impacts mix and redistribute dust, which doesn’t reduce the total amount but changes its distribution.
Solar Wind and Sputtering: Over billions of years, solar wind can cause some erosion at the atomic or molecular level, but this process is very slow and does not account for large-scale dust removal.
Electrostatic Levitation: Can lift dust particles, potentially contributing to some loss to space or redistribution, but again, this is minimal compared to the total dust volume.
Long-Term Dynamics:
The Moon’s regolith is not static; it’s in a state of continuous change. The depth we observe today is the result of billions of years of accumulation, redistribution, and minor loss.
Geological Time:
Over such vast timescales, even minor processes accumulate significant effects. The observed dust depth reflects a balance over time rather than a direct measure of accumulation without loss.
Misconception of Dust “Removal”:
We might be looking for a singular, dramatic mechanism of removal, but the reality is more about a slow, cumulative process where:
Dust is produced, redistributed, and occasionally lost to space or buried.
The “removal” is often about how dust becomes part of the lunar subsurface or is transformed rather than physically removed from the Moon.
Scientific Consensus:
The age of the Moon and the depth of its regolith are part of a larger picture that includes:
Radiometric dating of lunar rocks.
Crater counting for surface age determination.
Comparisons with other solar system bodies.
In conclusion, while it’s true that no single process accounts for a dramatic removal of dust, the observed depth is explained by a combination of accumulation, redistribution, and minor but continuous loss mechanisms over geological time scales. This doesn’t challenge the Moon’s age; rather, it’s consistent with an ancient body whose surface has been shaped by billions of years of cosmic and solar interactions.
In the Genesis story, it is evident that the world was created with the appearance of age. Adam, when only a few minutes old, appeared to be a full-grown adult male; trees were fully formed with fruit, mammals were created without needing to suckle from their mothers light from stars millions of light years away was already streaming down in the night sky.
So, it’s no contradiction of the creation story that Earth appears in many ways to be older than 6000 years; we should expect this. There may be many details related to a healthy ecosystem that motivated God’s precise design of an apparently old Earth. The key is to look for evidence that Earth is younger; there may be aspects of the universe which God did not create with the same appearance of age. We should use the youngest of these evidences to place an upper bound on the age of the earth.
Another interesting fact supporting a young Earth involves erosion: approximately 20 billion tons of sediment erode into the oceans annually via streams and rivers, creating large deltas where these meet the oceans. This is about 120X greater than all counterbalancing forces increasing land mass above sea level combined, such as volcanic action and tectonic uplift. The only way to explain an old Earth is to presume erosion rates are significantly higher today with respect to tectonic uplift than they have ever been on average. However, on average, one would expect the reverse, that erosion should have been higher at the start and decrease over time. The following chat with Grok2 elaborates.
Tim: How much sediment is moved into the oceans every year by streams and rivers?
Answer:
Approximately 20 billion tons of sediment are moved into the oceans annually by streams and rivers.
Tim: Where does the sediment go?
Answer
The sediment is primarily deposited on:
River deltas: Where rivers meet the sea, sediment builds up.
Continental shelves: Sediment spreads out before the ocean deepens.
Ocean floors: Finer particles can be carried further out.
Submarine canyons: Sediment can flow down these underwater valleys.
Over time, this sediment can form new land or contribute to the geological structure of the ocean floor.
Tim: How does this number compare with the amount of land above sea level?
Answer
The total land area above sea level is approximately 148.94 million km². (calculation) This means the sediment produced in 1 billion years would be about 1421.5 times the current mass of land above sea level, again assuming constant rates and conditions.
Tim: So, we are seeing that erosion is affecting the quantity of land above sea level, an order of magnitude more than the continental uplift, correct?
Answer
Yes, that’s correct. Based on the rough calculations:
Erosion: Approximately 20 billion tons (20 x 10^9 tons) per year.
Uplift: Roughly estimated at about 40.5 million tons (40.5 x 10^6 tons) per year, considering both high uplift zones and more general global uplift.
This means erosion is on the order of:
20×10^9 tons/yr / (40.5×10^6 tons/yr) ≈ 494
So, erosion is roughly 500 times greater than uplift in terms of mass annually. The point stands that erosion is significantly higher than uplift in terms of mass removed versus mass added above sea level. However, this doesn’t account for the complexities of geological processes where uplift can be very localized, and much of the eroded material might be redeposited, maintaining or even increasing landmass in certain areas.
Tim: How would all of the different forces counterbalancing erosion forces compare to erosion?
Answer
When considering all the forces that counterbalance erosion, we can look at several key processes:
Tectonic Uplift:
Rate: As estimated earlier, about 40.5 million tons/year globally.
Impact: Creates new land or raises existing land, particularly significant in mountain-building regions.
Volcanism:
Rate: Hard to quantify universally, but significant in localized areas. For instance, the Hawaiian Islands have grown over millions of years through volcanic activity.
Impact: Adds new land or expands existing landmasses, especially in oceanic settings.
Sediment Deposition:
Rate: Varies, but river deltas like the Mississippi or Nile can deposit millions of tons annually. For instance, the Mississippi River Delta adds about 100 million tons of sediment to the coast each year.
Impact: Builds land in deltaic and coastal environments, offsetting erosion by creating new land or stabilizing coastlines.
Coral Reef Growth:
Rate: Coral reefs can grow up to 10 mm per year under optimal conditions but vary widely.
Impact: Forms new land or elevates existing land in tropical marine environments, particularly through atoll formation.
Isostatic Rebound:
Rate: In regions like Scandinavia, it can be around 1-2 mm per year, but this varies.
Impact: Raises land previously depressed by ice or other heavy loads, effectively increasing land above sea level.
Human Activity:
Rate: Varies greatly by region, but land reclamation can add significant land area over time; for example, Singapore has expanded its land area by about 25% through reclamation.
Impact: Directly adds to landmass through engineering and geological manipulation.
Combining these:
Total Counterbalance: It’s challenging to sum these forces precisely because they act in different ways and in different locales. However, if we consider:
Tectonic uplift: 40.5 million tons/year
Volcanic additions: Variable but significant in specific regions
Sediment deposition: Potentially billions of tons, though much of this isn’t strictly “new” land but rather redistribution
Coral growth: Small in mass but can be significant in terms of land area in specific environments
Isostatic rebound: Adds mass in affected areas but over vast timescales
Human activity: Can be significant locally but not uniform globally
Given these:
Erosion Rate: 20 billion tons/year.
Compared to erosion, the combined counterbalancing forces are:
Significantly Lower in Mass: The uplift, deposition, and other processes do not match the sheer volume of material moved by erosion. However, they are crucial in specific regions or over geological timescales.
Localized Impact: While erosion is widespread, counterbalancing forces like uplift or volcanic activity can be very concentrated, making their local impact substantial.
Temporal Scale: Over thousands or millions of years, these processes balance out, maintaining or even increasing landmass in certain areas despite the ongoing erosion.
In summary, while erosion rates exceed the combined rates of these counterbalancing forces in terms of sheer mass annually, these processes work together to maintain Earth’s landmasses, particularly when viewed over long geological times.
Tim: Can you give me a percentage based on the average of all of these processes? How many times bigger is erosion than all of them combined?
Answer
Calculating an exact percentage or ratio for all these processes combined is highly speculative due to the variability and localized nature of each process. However, we can attempt a rough estimate:
Erosion Rate:
20 billion tons/year (20 x 10^9 tons/year)
Counterbalancing Processes:
Tectonic Uplift: Approximately 40.5 million tons/year (40.5 x 10^6 tons/year).
Volcanism: Since it’s very localized, let’s assume an additional 10 million tons/year globally for new land formation (highly speculative).
Sediment Deposition: Much of this is redeposition, but for new land, let’s conservatively estimate 100 million tons/year (again, highly speculative).
Coral Reef Growth: Adding new land might be around 1 million tons/year given its limited but significant impact in specific regions.
Isostatic Rebound: This varies greatly, but let’s estimate around 5 million tons/year globally as a very rough figure.
Human Activity: Land reclamation might add around 10 million tons/year globally.
Summing these, on a very rough estimate, erosion is about 120 times bigger than the combined mass increase from all these counterbalancing processes annually.
Percentage Comparison:
Erosion accounts for roughly 99.17% of the total mass movement (erosion + counterbalance).
Counterbalancing processes account for approximately 0.83%.
Please note, these figures are highly speculative:
They rely on very rough estimates for processes like volcanism and sediment deposition.
They do not account for the nuances of how material is redistributed or how uplift might affect erosion rates locally.
Geological processes are not linear or constant over time; they fluctuate widely with changes in climate, tectonics, and human influence.
This comparison is a simplification and should be taken as a rough conceptual guide rather than precise science.
Tim: Would it be reasonable to expect the reverse, that the rate of erosion should have been higher earlier in the history of the Earth and would decrease overtime?
Answer
It would indeed be reasonable to expect that the rate of erosion was higher earlier in Earth’s history for several reasons:
Tectonic Activity: Early Earth was characterized by more intense tectonic activity. With more frequent and intense plate collisions, mountain ranges would have been forming at a faster rate, leading to more material available for erosion. Younger Earth had a thinner lithosphere and more vigorous mantle convection, which would contribute to higher uplift rates and, consequently, higher erosion rates.
Volcanism: The early Earth had significantly more volcanic activity due to the heat from its formation, the decay of radioactive elements, and the impact of meteorites. This would have meant more exposed fresh rock for weathering and erosion.
Climate and Weathering: The Earth’s climate has changed dramatically over its history. There were periods, like the Hadean and early Archean, where the Earth might have been very hot, possibly with liquid water, leading to intense chemical weathering and physical erosion. Over time, the stabilization of the atmosphere and oceans would generally lead to more moderate conditions, though there have been significant fluctuations.
Land Surface Area: Over time, the continental landmasses have grown through processes like accretion and the Wilson Cycle (the opening and closing of ocean basins), but initially, there might have been less land above sea level to erode, though what was there might have been more actively eroding.
Vegetation: The evolution of plant life on land, especially during the Silurian and Devonian periods, significantly reduced erosion rates by stabilizing soil. This biological factor would have decreased erosion rates over geological time.
Sediment Transport: With the rise of life in the oceans, especially burrowing organisms, sediment transport and deposition patterns changed, potentially reducing the rate of sediment reaching the deep ocean.
Geological Cycles: Over billions of years, the Earth has gone through multiple supercontinent cycles (e.g., formation and breakup of Pangaea), each cycle influencing erosion rates differently. During times of supercontinent formation, there would be more mountain building and thus more erosion.
However, this concept of decreasing erosion rates over time should be nuanced:
Episodic Changes: There have been periods where erosion rates might have increased due to specific events like ice ages (glaciation causes intense physical erosion) or massive flood events.
Human Influence: In recent times, human activities like deforestation, agriculture, and urbanization have locally increased erosion rates, counteracting the long-term trend.
Ongoing Tectonic Activity: Even today, areas like the Himalayas continue to see high erosion rates due to ongoing uplift.
Therefore, while it’s reasonable to hypothesize that average global erosion rates might have decreased over Earth’s history due to these factors, the reality is that these rates have fluctuated significantly with geological, climatic, and biological changes. The trend isn’t linear but rather cyclical and punctuated by events that either accelerate or mitigate erosion.