The Age of the Earth?
"New Isotope Analysis Just Changed The Very Timeline of How Earth Was Born"
https://www.sciencealert.com/it-only-took-5-million-years-to-earth-to-form-from-leftover-stardust
https://www.livescience.com/meteorite-iron-shows-earth-formed-fast.html
To be accurate, this article is not about how old the Earth is. Rather, it is about the time it took to form Earth. The article is highlighted here mainly to point out the fact that, when dealing with 'Big' Science such as Cosmology or the Formation of Stars and Planets, there is no definite or correct answer. Of course, this is no surprise to the true scientists, they know that these are theories based upon assumptions on top of other assumptions and so forth. So the scientists will among the first people to get excited when new information prove their old theories wrong.
In the article above, basically the new findings suggest, not prove, that the Earth could have been formed in 5 million years. This is very short compared to their previous understanding that the Earth took over tens of millions of years to form. This is no closer to the almost instantaneous time God took to create the heavenly bodies, but from tens of millions to a few million years is a drastic step in the right direction mathematically.
To go a bit into the detail, the new findings is based on the amount of isotopic iron Fe-54 found on the Earths' mantle. The amount is subtantially less than previously thought, thus leading to the thinking that the Earth was formed quicker than previously thought. It is also interesting that the article uses the analogy of sphagetti bolognase to explain the composition of the iron isotope. Using analogy is not something that should be scoffed at - as an example, many of Einstein's theory were developed simply from thought experiments, which are analogies. In this case of estimating the Earth's formation time, it also noteworthy then, to realize that time scales such as the age or formation of the earth has no direct measure. Their calculations and methodology may be no better or no worse than using analogies, and thus their results cannot be claimed to be certain. On the other hand, God's Word has been proven to be 100% correct.
Update: new article "New Research Is Rewriting The Very Timeline of How Earth Was Born"
"New Isotope Analysis Just Changed The Very Timeline of How Earth Was Born"
https://www.sciencealert.com/it-only-took-5-million-years-to-earth-to-form-from-leftover-stardust
https://www.livescience.com/meteorite-iron-shows-earth-formed-fast.html
To be accurate, this article is not about how old the Earth is. Rather, it is about the time it took to form Earth. The article is highlighted here mainly to point out the fact that, when dealing with 'Big' Science such as Cosmology or the Formation of Stars and Planets, there is no definite or correct answer. Of course, this is no surprise to the true scientists, they know that these are theories based upon assumptions on top of other assumptions and so forth. So the scientists will among the first people to get excited when new information prove their old theories wrong.
In the article above, basically the new findings suggest, not prove, that the Earth could have been formed in 5 million years. This is very short compared to their previous understanding that the Earth took over tens of millions of years to form. This is no closer to the almost instantaneous time God took to create the heavenly bodies, but from tens of millions to a few million years is a drastic step in the right direction mathematically.
To go a bit into the detail, the new findings is based on the amount of isotopic iron Fe-54 found on the Earths' mantle. The amount is subtantially less than previously thought, thus leading to the thinking that the Earth was formed quicker than previously thought. It is also interesting that the article uses the analogy of sphagetti bolognase to explain the composition of the iron isotope. Using analogy is not something that should be scoffed at - as an example, many of Einstein's theory were developed simply from thought experiments, which are analogies. In this case of estimating the Earth's formation time, it also noteworthy then, to realize that time scales such as the age or formation of the earth has no direct measure. Their calculations and methodology may be no better or no worse than using analogies, and thus their results cannot be claimed to be certain. On the other hand, God's Word has been proven to be 100% correct.
Update: new article "New Research Is Rewriting The Very Timeline of How Earth Was Born"
No comments:
Post a Comment