Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

How Old is the Earth? A Look at the Scientific Evidence Part 1.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "How Old is the Earth? A Look at the Scientific Evidence Part 1."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 How Old is the Earth? A Look at the Scientific Evidence Part 1

3 The Significance: Lawrence Badash Prof. Emeritus, U. CA, S.B. “…4.5 billion years ago, the primal earth emerged from a spinning, turbulent cloud of gas, dust and planetoids that surrounded the new star. …On these figures for the age of the earth rest all of geology and evolution.” Scientific American 8/1989, p. 90

4 The Significance: Lawrence Badash Prof. Emeritus, U. CA, S.B. “…4.5 billion years ago, the primal earth emerged from a spinning, turbulent cloud of gas, dust and planetoids that surrounded the new star. …On these figures for the age of the earth rest all of geology and evolution.” Scientific American 8/1989, p. 90

5 The Significance: George Wald Nobel Laureate, Harvard “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet, here we are –as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Scientific American Vol. 191 No. 2, P. 46

6 The Significance: George Wald Nobel Laureate, Harvard “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet, here we are –as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Scientific American Vol. 191 No. 2, P. 46

7 The Significance: George Wald Nobel Laureate, Harvard “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet, here we are –as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Scientific American Vol. 191 No. 2, P. 46

8 The Significance: George Wald Nobel Laureate, Harvard “However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. …Times is in fact the hero of the plot.” Physics And Chemistry Of Life P. 12

9 The Significance: George Wald Nobel Laureate, Harvard “However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. …Times is in fact the hero of the plot.” Physics And Chemistry Of Life P. 12

10 The Significance: George Wald Nobel Laureate, Harvard “Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” Physics And Chemistry Of Life P. 12

11 The Significance: George Wald Nobel Laureate, Harvard “Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” Physics And Chemistry Of Life P. 12

12 WHY?

13 WHY? “Evidence is in the Rocks”

14 WHY? 1.Geological Phenomena 2.Radiometric Dating

15 Radiometric Dating

16 “Geologists commonly use radiometric dating methods, based on the natural radioactive decay of certain elements such as potassium and carbon, as reliable clocks to date ancient events.” Peppe, D. J. & Deino, A. L. (2013) Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods. Nature Education Knowledge 4(10):1

17 How it Works:

18 About 20 Types: Uranium-Lead (other) Potassium-Argon Radiocarbon dating

19 Implicit Assumptions Henry Faul “Two important assumptions are implicit in this equation: First, that we are dealing with a closed system. And second, that no atoms of the daughter were present in the system when it formed. These assumptions furnish the most serious limitations on the accumulation clocks.” Ages of Rocks, Planets & Stars P. vi

20 Implicit Assumptions Henry Faul “Two important assumptions are implicit in this equation: First, that we are dealing with a closed system. And second, that no atoms of the daughter were present in the system when it formed. These assumptions furnish the most serious limitations on the accumulation clocks.” Ages of Rocks, Planets & Stars P. vi

21 Implicit Assumptions Henry Faul “Rigorously closed systems probably do not exist in nature, but surprisingly, many minerals and rocks satisfy the requirements well enough to be useful for nuclear age determination. The problem is one of judicious geological selection.” Ages of Rocks, Planets & Stars P. vi

22 Implicit Assumptions Henry Faul “Rigorously closed systems probably do not exist in nature, but surprisingly, many minerals and rocks satisfy the requirements well enough to be useful for nuclear age determination. The problem is one of judicious geological selection.” Ages of Rocks, Planets & Stars P. vi

23 Implicit Assumptions Henry Faul “Rigorously closed systems probably do not exist in nature, but surprisingly, many minerals and rocks satisfy the requirements well enough to be useful for nuclear age determination. The problem is one of judicious geological selection.” Ages of Rocks, Planets & Stars P. vi

24 Leaky Rocks? J. D. Macdougall “…ground-water percolation can leach away a proportion of the uranium present in the rock crystals. The mobility of uranium is such that as one part of a rock formation is being impoverished another part can become abnormally enriched…at relatively low temperatures.” Scientific American V. 235 (6):118

25 Assumptions: 1.Closed System 2.No Material Initially Present 3.Rates Are Constant

26 1470 Skull Smithsonian Institute/ Chip Clark

27 1470 Skull Smithsonian Institute/ Chip Clark Roger Lewin Ed. Research New Science

28 1470 Skull Smithsonian Institute/ Chip Clark Roger Lewin Ed. Research New Science “The calculated age was quickly refined to be 2.61 ± 0.26 million years, which to the anthropologist unfamiliar to the procedures of radiometric dating has a ring of comforting precision about it.” Bones of Contention pg. 194

29 1470 Skull Smithsonian Institute/ Chip Clark Roger Lewin Ed. Research New Science “…41 separate age determinations…which varied between 223 million and 0.91 million years…after the first determination they never again obtained 2.61 from their experiments.” Bones of Contention pg. 194

30 Mt. St. Helens

31

32

33

34 Caldera

35 Mt. St. Helens Dr. Don PattonDr. Don Patton Took 5 samples from CalderaTook 5 samples from Caldera Caldera

36 Mt. St. Helens Dr. Don PattonDr. Don Patton Took 5 samples from CalderaTook 5 samples from Caldera The results were as follows:The results were as follows: Dome 1 ~.2 Million yearsDome 1 ~.2 Million years Dome 1L ~.3 Million yearsDome 1L ~.3 Million years Dome 1M ~.8 Million yearsDome 1M ~.8 Million years Dome H ~ 1.5 Million yearsDome H ~ 1.5 Million years Dome P ~ 2.9 Million yearsDome P ~ 2.9 Million years Caldera

37 Mt. St. Helens Dr. Don PattonDr. Don Patton Took 5 samples from CalderaTook 5 samples from Caldera The results were as follows:The results were as follows: Dome 1 ~.2 Million yearsDome 1 ~.2 Million years Dome 1L ~.3 Million yearsDome 1L ~.3 Million years Dome 1M ~.8 Million yearsDome 1M ~.8 Million years Dome H ~ 1.5 Million yearsDome H ~ 1.5 Million years Dome P ~ 2.9 Million yearsDome P ~ 2.9 Million years ACTUALLY 11 YEARS OLD! ACTUALLY 11 YEARS OLD! Caldera

38 RadioCarbon? Robert E. Lee “The troubles with of radiocarbon dating methods are deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding. The underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged…” Anthropological Journal of Canada V.9, N. 3, 1981, p. 9

39 RadioCarbon? Robert E. Lee “The troubles with of radiocarbon dating methods are deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding. The underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged…” Anthropological Journal of Canada V.9, N. 3, 1981, p. 9

40 RadioCarbon? Robert E. Lee “The troubles with of radiocarbon dating methods are deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding. The underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged…” Anthropological Journal of Canada V.9, N. 3, 1981, p. 9

41 RadioCarbon? Robert E. Lee “It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.” Anthropological Journal of Canada V.9, N. 3, 1981, p. 9

42 RadioCarbon? Robert E. Lee “It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.” Anthropological Journal of Canada V.9, N. 3, 1981, p. 9

43 RadioCarbon? Robert E. Lee “It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.” Anthropological Journal of Canada V.9, N. 3, 1981, p. 9

44 Testing the Test – C14 Sent samples to UCLA Carbon Dating Lab

45 Testing the Test – C14 Sent samples to UCLA Carbon Dating Lab

46 Testing the Test – C14 C14 Dated at 890 Sent samples to UCLA Carbon Dating Lab

47 Testing the Test – C14 C14 Dated at 890 Sent samples to UCLA Carbon Dating Lab

48 Testing the Test – C14 C14 Dated at 890 C14 Dated at 12.8K Sent samples to UCLA Carbon Dating Lab

49 Testing the Test – C14 C14 Dated at 890 C14 Dated at 12.8K Sent samples to UCLA Carbon Dating Lab 100/100 dinosaur bones had significant C14!

50 Unrealiable clocks? W. D. Stanfield Professor of Biological Science, C. P. S. U. “It is obvious that radiometric technique, may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.” The Science of Evolution Pg. 84

51 W. D. Stanfield Professor of Biological Science, C. P. S. U. “Age estimates given on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’” The Science of Evolution Pg. 84 Unrealiable clocks?

52 W. D. Stanfield Professor of Biological Science, C. P. S. U. “Age estimates given on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’” The Science of Evolution Pg. 84 Unrealiable clocks?

53 Why is the Earth old?

54


Download ppt "How Old is the Earth? A Look at the Scientific Evidence Part 1."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google