The age of the Earth has great significance in the debate between Creation and evolutionism. If the Earth is billions of years old then evolutionists will claim that life is just the result of natural chemical reactions and countless ages of gradual improvements guided by natural law. If, on the other hand, the Earth is relatively young then evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on. Both Creation and evolutionism have unavoidable religious implications: if Creation is true then there is a Creator with Whom we have to do, but if Creation is not true then life as we know it is a flash in the pan that will soon be extinguished in the Heat Death of the Universe and all that we have accomplished will mean nothing.
So, a profound question lurks in the wings, demanding to be answered: What can science tell us about the age of the Earth? The simple answer is NOTHING! Obviously, there was no human witness to the beginning of the Earth, and in spite of the genius of man we cannot state with certainty how or when that happened. Science, guided by philosophical naturalism, has invested untold billions of dollars and man-hours attempting to answer the question. But try as they might they have not, and cannot. The branch of science that deals with unseen past events is called forensic science, which doesn't prove anything to be true or false. It attempts to narrow the field of possible answers to the one that seems most likely. Hard science deals with trying to establish the truth based on observation, testing and falsification. What I want to consider in this thread is the various methods that scientists use to try to chart Earths' past history, and why they fail.
The two principle methods of dating artifacts are carbon and non-carbon radiometric analysis. Carbon dating is generally used to establish the age of a once-living specimen. Non-carbon dating is generally used to attempt to date objects that were not living things, or the fossilized remains of creatures that have completely mineralized.
Today I'll deal with carbon dating. Carbon 14 is an unstable form of carbon that forms in the upper atmosphere when an energetic free neutron collides with a nitrogen atom and displaces a proton. Over time the carbon-14 atom will revert back to nitrogen, having a half-life of about 5,730 years. Carbon-12 is a stable form of atmospheric carbon and the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in our atmosphere is approximately 1 to 1 trillion. Since living things exchange carbon with their environment through breathing and eating, etc., they should contain in their tissues carbon at the same ratio as the air. So, if the C-14 to C-12 ratio in a specimen is 1 to 2 trillion, then it is assumed that the C-14 has gone through one half-life cycle and hence the specimen is about 5,730 years old. On the surface this seems to be reasonable, but there are a number of factors that call this method into question:
1. We can't know what the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was at the time the specimen died. The amount of both forms of carbon are effected by above-ground nuclear explosions, volcanic eruptions, solar activity and the strength of Earths' magnetic field. All of these factors are variable, and with respect to the magnetic field we know that it is weakening with a half-life of about 1,400 years. That means that in the past the magnetic field would have been a far more effective shield against cosmic radiation, and consequently C-14 formation would have been less than it is today. It has been calculated that it would take about 30,000 years to go from zero C-14 to equilibrium, and we aren't there yet.
2. We can't know if the rate of decay of C-14 has been constant over time.
3. Even with AMS technology we can't detect the presence of C-14 in specimens more than 100,000 years old. And yet we find measurable C-14 in coal and even in diamonds, both of which are claimed to be hundreds of thousands to millions of years old.
4. Tests have been done on specimens whose true ages were known, and with disastrous results. The shells of living snails gave a C-14 age of 26,000 years!
So, the next question is: If the test method doesn't give you a correct result when you know the true answer, why would you ever trust the result when you can't know if it is right or wrong? And then there are the matters of specimen contamination and equipment calibration. The bottom line is that C-14 dating is inherently unreliable. Next time we'll consider the non-carbon radiometric methods and see if they are any more credible than C-14.
I think that carbon dating grossly exaggerated, because it is a typical secular principle of measuring the past in millions and billions, and trillions and more years, which is perfectly meets secular agenda to discredit a Biblical account of creation of the universe (cosmos) and the Earth.
But lets take a look at the Biblical account of events. What GOD created first, universe or the Earth? According to Genesis, GOD completely formed Earth on the 3rh day (Genesis 1.9-10).
And what about universe (cosmos)? The Cosmos: sun, moon, and stars, were created on the 4th day (Genesis 1.14-19).
So, the conclusion can be made, as it may sounds strange, the Earth was created before the cosmos!
How actually we can count the age of the Earth and the cosmos, from day ONE? I found very interesting material concerning two first days of creation.
(5. *And there was evening. The day, according to the Scriptural reckoning of time, begins with the preceding evening. Thus, the observance of the day of Atonement is to be 'from even into even' (Leviticus 23.32); and similarly of the Sabbath and Festivals.)
The Pentateuch and Haftorahs. Edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, C.H.)
(5. *Evening... morning. The Hebrew words erev and boker literally mean "sunset" and "break of dawn," terms inappropriate before the creation of the sun on the fourth day.)
Etz Hayim. Torah and Commentary.
(5. **One day. Not an ordinary day, but a Day of GOD (יומו של הקכ ''ה), an age. With Him a thousand years, nay a thousand ages, are but as a day that is past (Psalm 90.4) (2Peter 3.8 A.G). 'Earthly and human measurements of time, by a clock of human manufacture, cannot apply to the first three days, as the sun was not then in existence. The beginning of each period of creation is called morning; its close, evening' (Delitzsh); in the same way, we speak of the morning and evening of life.)
The Pentateuch and Haftorahs. Edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, C.H.)
So, what the next? The next I started count genealogy (Genesis 5), the life spend of Adam and all the way down to the Great Flood of Noah. Actually many similar calculation have been made by other scholars and my calculations came close to some of other scholars who did the same thing.
THE GENEALOGY OF MANKIND.
The ten generations from Adam to Noah.
(אדם) - Adam: died in the year 930 from Creation.
(שת) - Seth: born in the year 130 from Creation; died in 1042.
After this time, people begin to do evil.
(אנוש) - Enosh: 235. 1140.
(קינן) - Kenan: 325. 1235.
(מהללאל) - Mahalalel: 395. 1290.
(ירר) - Jared: 460. 1422.
(חנוך) - Enoch: 622. 987.
(מתושלח) - Methuselah: 687. 1656
(למך) - Lamech: 874. 1651.
(נח) - Noah: 1056. 1006.
The CHUMASH. The Stone Edition.
Rabbi Nosson Scherman / Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz.
We can also count generations from Shem to Abram (Genesis 11.10-26) according to the life spend of their lives. In total, I come up with approximate number between 12 and 15 thousand years of the total age of the Earth according to this numbers. You can do it yourself, because all the numbers needed are present.
And how old is the universe? According to Genesis, it seems that the Earth a little bit older than the universe (the Earth created on the 3rd day, the universe on the 4th day). What the spend of those first 6 days of creation, no one knows, and the time of them is not given in earthly years, so we can live them behind.
But the most important things here is the precise numbers of life of the first generations, and upon them we can calculate approximate age of the Earth, and subsequently the universe.