Where does the number 4.5 billion come from?

[YesYouNeedJesus]

I'm relatively new to science and I'm a YEC. Some mentors of mine have explained to me that the age of the earth held by practically everyone, came from bad science. They said that number has absolutely no evidence and was actually concocted by an evolutionary scientist by the name of Patterson in 1955. The number 4.5 billion came from his beliefs about where the lead in meteorites came from.

But in 1972 research by a scientist named Gale disproved Patterson's work. And of course the number stuck and is still a widespread held belief by evolutionists today.

Is this true?

 

[australopithecus]

Just out of interest; when all this is explained to you, and you're given evidence, what reason will you give as to why you're not going to accept it?

 

[WarK]

I'm relatively new to science and I'm a YEC. Some mentors of mine have explained lied to me that the age of the earth held by practically everyone, came from bad science. They said that number has absolutely no evidence and was actually concocted by an evolutionary scientist by the name of Patterson in 1955. The number 4.5 billion came from his beliefs about where the lead in meteorites came from.

But in 1972 research by a scientist named Gale disproved Patterson's work. And of course the number stuck and is still a widespread held belief by evolutionists today.

Is this true?

There, fixed that for you.

You may find this interesting Non-radiometric dating based evidence for an old Earth

Are you really interested in finding out the answer to your question? Creationists usually presuppose that the myth of their choosing is true and everything, especially reality, that contradicts it must be wrong. So why do you even ask this kind of questions?

Why do you trust some preacher and not the science? Do you have similar reservations when it comes to branches of science other than biology?

Would you change your mind if you saw evidence for real age of the earth? Could you?

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

I have changed my mind countless times in my life when shown evidence to the contrary. So I hope that helps. I would be shocked if anyone here could provide evidence for the 4.5 billion number that cannot be traced back to Patterson. Patterson's science was dead wrong and was disproven in Science magazine in 1972.

I don't want to get into a discussion JUST on the age of the earth. (Not yet.) I want to focus on this 4.5 billion number that everyone seems to accept. I'm sure everyone here holds to that number too.

Can anyone here admit that it's possible that the 4.5 billion number stuck, yet was based on bad science? Or do you think that even though Patterson's science was wrong, he coincidentally still got the EXACT number right?

 

[australopithecus]

They said that number has absolutely no evidence and was actually concocted by an evolutionary scientist by the name of Patterson in 1955. The number 4.5 billion came from his beliefs about where the lead in meteorites came from.

But in 1972 research by a scientist named Gale disproved Patterson's work. And of course the number stuck and is still a widespread held belief by evolutionists today.

Evidence for these claims that isn't a creationist source please. Then explain to me what an evolutionary biologist was doing messing around in the field of geology.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Evidence for these claims that isn't a creationist source please. Then explain to me what an evolutionary biologist was doing messing around in the field of geology.

Is that really necessary? If everyone holds to this number for the age of the earth, doesn't everyone know the science behind this number? Who cares what I was told by lunatic creationists. If a young boy asked anyone here why they believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, what evidence would you give?

 

[australopithecus]

Is that really necessary? If everyone holds to this number for the age of the earth, doesn't everyone know the science behind this number? Who cares what I was told by lunatic creationists. If a young boy asked anyone here why they believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, what evidence would you give?

It's called citing your sources. It's also called polite.

But I'll do my best to answer the question which has already been answered above by Wark.

Yes, C.C Patterson did contribute to the age of the Earth figure of 4.5 billion years. No, his work was not discredited nor disproven (whoever told you that lied to you), and the reason the age of 4.5 billion has stuck is because it is the age that has been arrived at by various methods of dating over many years. Simply put, the evidences states 4.5 billion years is accurate. That's it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

 

[Dean]

["¦] If a young boy asked anyone here why they believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, what evidence would you give?

Is it just me who finds this to be quite an unusual choice of words? A young boy? Why young? Why a boy? :? This gives me a good mind to ask you your age. You mentioned that you are "new to science", and that you are a 'YEC', and also phrased this question to be directed at "young boys", apparently? Why?

But in any case "¦
The most reliable evidence I can present to you (assuming you already have a fair knowledge of this) si the evidence from radiometric dating. Now, I wager that you , like the creationists that you undoubtedly aspire to (e.g. Hovind...) , will dismiss most , if not all , forms of radiometric/carbon dating as invalid. Correct? And in which case, what do you think IS a reliable means of testing for the age of the Earth? The bible, perhaps...? I feel your paragraphs really do warrant some further elaboration, such that we can be clear why you are doing this, and if you even understand the terms you are choosing to use.

 

[Dean]

australopithecus

["¦] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html ["¦]

Perhaps it would be good of me to point YesYouNeedJesus to the thread entitled "Evolution by Natural Selection" ...

Link: http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=127837#p127837

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

It's called citing your sources. It's also called polite.

But I'll do my best to answer the question which has already been answered above by Wark.

Yes, C.C Patterson did contribute to the age of the Earth figure of 4.5 billion years. No, his work was not discredited nor disproven (whoever told you that lied to you), and the reason the age of 4.5 billion has stuck is because it is the age that has been arrived at by various methods of dating over many years. Simply put, the evidences states 4.5 billion years is accurate. That's it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Great, thanks. BTW, Wark's post doesn't help at all. His link talks about the earth being old in general and doesn't touch on the 4.5 billion number. Is your Talk Origins link peer-reviewed?

If I was lied to, I'm going to be upset! Are you open to the possibility that Patterson's work was disproven? (I'm only stalling because I need to find it!)

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Is it just me who finds this to be quite an unusual choice of words? A young boy? Why young? Why a boy? :? This gives me a good mind to ask you your age. You mentioned that you are "new to science", and that you are a 'YEC', and also phrased this question to be directed at "young boys", apparently? Why?

I'm 28. I said "young boy" because if an educated, evolutionist-believing adult asked the question, you might smack him in the face and say, "You should know!"

But in any case "¦
The most reliable evidence I can present to you (assuming you already have a fair knowledge of this) si the evidence from radiometric dating. Now, I wager that you , like the creationists that you undoubtedly aspire to (e.g. Hovind...) , will dismiss most , if not all , forms of radiometric/carbon dating as invalid. Correct? And in which case, what do you think IS a reliable means of testing for the age of the Earth? The bible, perhaps...? I feel your paragraphs really do warrant some further elaboration, such that we can be clear why you are doing this, and if you even understand the terms you are choosing to use.

I can't stand Hovind. My mentors are the best in the business, IMHO. I'd like to stick to the topic for now. I'm pretty sure Patterson was completely proven wrong and if true, it's rather interesting that the results of his work stuck until today.

 

[australopithecus]

Great, thanks. BTW, Wark's post doesn't help at all. His link talks about the earth being old in general and doesn't touch on the 4.5 billion number. Is your Talk Origins link peer-reviewed?

If I was lied to, I'm going to be upset! Are you open to the possibility that Patterson's work was disproven? (I'm only stalling because I need to find it!)

If Patterson's work was discredited then fine, however you need to understand that the figure of 4.5 isn't based on Pattersons work, but the work of many fields which all independently validate each other. If Patterson was discredited then it wouldn't invalidate the 4.5 billion year figure. You would also need to evidence why and when and how he was discredited.

TalkOrigins is not peer-reviewed itself but it does link to the peer review papers they reference, and also link to creationist sources they are addressing too.

Also, I'm just wondering, given your admission you have no knowledge or experience with science, on what grounds are you going to judge any evidence?

 

[WarK]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Great, thanks. BTW, Wark's post doesn't help at all. His link talks about the earth being old in general and doesn't touch on the 4.5 billion number. Is your Talk Origins link peer-reviewed?

If I was lied to, I'm going to be upset! Are you open to the possibility that Patterson's work was disproven? (I'm only stalling because I need to find it!)

Talk origins article provides list of references at the bottom. Have you ever seen this on a creationist site? Do creationists link to peer reviewed papers? Well ok, they do, only in most cases the paper refutes the claim a creationist is making

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I'm pretty sure Patterson was completely proven wrong and if true, it's rather interesting that the results of his work stuck until today.

Why are you "pretty sure?" What evidence do you have of this?

I mean, if I were to say that I'm 'pretty sure' the shape of the earth is actually a tetrahedron you would want to know why I think that, right?

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

If Patterson's work was discredited then fine, however you need to understand that the figure of 4.5 isn't based on Pattersons work, but the work of many fields which all independently validate each other. If Patterson was discredited then it wouldn't invalidate the 4.5 billion year figure. You would also need to evidence why and when and how he was discredited.

I thought you'd say that. So that's so interesting that even though his work was discredited, he magically got the number EXACTLY right. What a coincidence! I'll need some help to understand the link you sent, but the link seems to credit Patterson with the 4.5 billion number and the other research comes up with lesser numbers.

TalkOrigins is not peer-reviewed itself but it does link to the peer review papers they reference, and also link to creationist sources they are addressing too.

Also, I'm just wondering, given your admission you have no knowledge or experience with science, on what grounds are you going to judge any evidence?

Others. And I'll gradually learn.

I found the scientists who discredited Patterson. Give me a few minutes to post it.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

http://www.nature.com/nature-physci/journal/v240/n99/pdf/physci240056a0.pdf

Found it.

I can't find the content of the article above, but those are the scientists that disproved Patterson's work. Does anyone have that magazine?

They showed that Patterson's beliefs about where the lead in meteorites came from was provably wrong. They showed that there was too much lead in meteorites to claim that it formed from uranium. Much of the lead had originally been in the meteorite.

Thoughts?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

http://www.nature.com/nature-physci/journal/v240/n99/pdf/physci240056a0.pdf

Found it.

I can't find the content of the article above, but those are the scientists that disproved Patterson's work. Does anyone have that magazine?

They showed that Patterson's beliefs about where the lead in meteorites came from was provably wrong. They showed that there was too much lead in meteorites to claim that it formed from uranium. Much of the lead had originally been in the meteorite.

Thoughts?

I take it you haven't read the article?

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

I take it you haven't read the article?

Correct. Instead of blindly trusting my mentors or asking other YECs for corroboration, I figured it would be best to ask you guys.

I'm literally BRAND new to science. I would say I'm about 6 months into it. I cheated my way through school and never learned a thing. It the past few months it has become a hobby of mine. I'm loving it!

 

[Inferno]

I take it you haven't read the article?

I can't access it, can you? If yes, please send it to my E-Mail, k?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I take it you haven't read the article?

I can't access it, can you? If yes, please send it to my E-Mail, k?

Nah, I don't have college access anymore.