How Old Is The Earth? Who Really Cares?

Earth is about 4.6 Billion years old. That is pretty amazing. It's also (for me personally) really cool, because I have been meaning to share some of my personal knowledge about our Universe, the Big Bang and the age of our solar system for a while now. I like to learn more as I'm doing a lot of personal study, not registered anywhere at the moment, though I am tempted! But I digress...

The topic is the age of our wonderful planet; 4.6 Billion years or about 4.5 billions of years old, according to some less recent estimates (in my previous Google search).

I am looking now, at my TV screen, which is displaying the same search (how old is the earth) and there is a big picture of the earth's land masses, continents in dark and lighter green hues, yellow and brownish hues, and the water bodies that surround them, which are the oceans and seas, etc. Up towards the top of that map is the polar icecap, or the Arctic. And another white landmass (actually ice) which is the South polar ice cap. My memories of high school geography, and other science based learning are really fuzzy; but I'll do my best to explain what this blog post is about.

There is one big number on this page, 4.543 billion years, in big black letters on a white background, to the left of the pictorial (map). And a little below that are three other numbers beside three little blue words, probably links, that say Milky Way (13.21By) Moon (4.53By) and Mars (4.503By). Right off the bat, we can see that the ages of the planet Earth, our Moon and Mars, one of our nearest planetary neighbors, is  close to the same age as our Sun.

I studied one university course in Astronomy and did quite well (not exceptional or anything).
I learned a lot, like the fact that most of the time we would be looking at a man made sky in our classroom (it had reclining seats, to help for comfortable viewing of the planet dome's starry sky and made for easier learning and retention of critical Astronomical details) I felt uncomfortable the first time, leaning back (like at the dentist my first time). But quickly one gets accustomed to the dark and the amazing detailed scenes, which were directed by the professor of Astronomy 101. The path our planet takes around the sun is an ellipses ("elliptical" orbit). This accounts for the variance in weather and temperatures around the world, and the four seasons, something not known by many people, who nonetheless can benefit from a romantic evening of star gazing as much as the next (astronomy geek) guy (or gal).

The Universe is much older than the planets or our solar system.

Today I was reminded of this when I read up on the age of the Sun. It is said that our sun is a middle aged star! I started wondering then and there, if the sun is middle aged, that must mean there are other suns that are older or younger than our Sun.

Just now I was reading something about the sun being a "white dwarf". Some of the terminology definitely rings a bell for me.

What is the point of all this?

The point is that this solar system (in the milky way galaxy) is much younger than the Universe.

Why is it younger?

Even from a scientific perspective, isn't it a really puzzling question?

Atheists in particular believe that a young earth is something all theists have to believe in, but that isn't true. The Quran and therefore Muslims doesn't give an age for the earth at all. It mentioned stages of creation for the earth like there were stages of creation for other 'life'. [E.g. embryology in the Quran]. But this doesn't even come close to the confusion for us (as thinking and reasoning beings) when confronted with the fact that nothing in our solar system is close to 14 Billion years old.

How do scientists explain this apparent mystery?

The International Planetarium Society, Inc. is a good resource to begin your personal study into this fascinating question.

I believe in the Big Bang theory and the age of the Universe must be very much older than our own solar system. I just don't have proof from any scripture or the Quran yet that has led me to this conclusion; I would like a  more solid foundation for this belief.
Now we have many scientists or pseudo scientists who, I assume from some of the cyber buzz, no longer believe in the Big Bang theory.
It remains to be seen what science will turn up in the future about this important question.

There are White Dwarfs or suns which are 10 billion years old, the oldest in the Universe. By measuring the age of such stars, we know that the Universe is billions of years older than that, about 4 By older, according to scientists who have studied the question.

The Muslims' holy book alludes to the possibility of other planets like ours, e.g. "seven earths". There might well be life around a distant star, with a planet like ours which supports life.



 

The Problem of Being a Maggie

Science and Faith Questions

Fruits and vegetables:

Tomatoes and pumpkins are technically, fruits. They have seeds like other fruits; but most ppl would say they are vegetables, and we generally cook them like that, e..g pumpkins for pies, like sweet potatoes are sweet and ooze caramel when cooked.

But will a tomato ever evolve into a vegetable (having no seeds) on its own, without the intervention of man’s genetic modification of the organism? E.g. GMO.

OR will potatoes ever evolve into fruits containing seeds for plant reproduction?

Human Beings

There is one glaring fact which supposes that natural selection isn’t all it’s cracked up to be as far as theories go. There are many very successful, intelligent, compassionate and kind people who never have children, and there are as many (or more, if you look around, it seems to be the case) examples of people who make lousy parents, who are unsuccessful, or at best mediocre or average, who might not be very intelligent or who are not even kind or compassionate and shouldn’t really be parents.

Some examples of famous people, who didn’t pass on their genes, are….

This means that despite n natural selection, there are people who would make great parents who never have any children. And there are lousy parents , or stupid, sick, extremely allergic, lactose intolerant, high school dropouts, mentally retarded, physically handicapped and others who for good or bad are able to pass on their genes (and have had children).

Does it seem unfair? Not really. This is just what some might call, “the luck of the draw” in some cases, or perhaps it is destiny…

And we have to also consider nurture as well, there are people who can have children, but for some reason or other make bad parents; it isn’t always their fault, or their lack of trying, but they do not get credit for trying, they are not moms or dads of the year, and that’s also why natural selection isn’t perfect. There are always other influences or factors besides natural selection (or the nature part of the equation) which affect the outcome of families with children, and the lives of children in general.

A child could be totally ‘awesome’ but end up an adult who never accomplishes anything and dies without the great successes or name of many others (less worthy people.) Having the best genetic makeup doesn’t guarantee success in life. If someone is born into extreme poverty, there is a likelihood he will never have the same opportunities as kids somewhere else in the world, who are fortunate to be living in the first world.

On the other side of the coin, there are children who are fortunate to be born in the first world, who have all the things they need, and if they are smart and properly nurtured and cared for, guided and encouraged, then they can do great things in the future. Look at the biography of Steve Jobs, for example. While he was adopted, his parents gave him the advantage of a good genetic makeup and then his upbringing helped that along in tremendous ways, so he was able to grow up to be extremely successful.

The theory of natural selection doesn’t seem to adequately account for the likelihood of other life events, or even in the case of the dinosaurs, many questions remain. Of course, it is much easier to study the present than the past. Therefore, it m makes more sense to at least study modern mammals, if we want to understand anything about who we are and where we came from. This is why neuro science for example, can help us answer why we believe in God, even though it can’t answer whether or not God exists. Also, if we know why we believe in God (according to recent science, it is the “god spot”), then it seems that there is less reason for atheists to hate others, or promote a secular or humanistic approach than any others, because, if we are actually “programmed” to believe in God - it is easier from an intellectual perspective, to accept that all humans share this much in common, e.g. the ability to believe. From a purely chemical-neurological standpoint religious faith is something that is present and possible in all humans.

Is it right for ethologists, biologists or others, considering the wealth of knowledge on the effects of brain chemistry on the rest of the person , to then ignore this? Why hate others for something that is really a part of human nature or even biology? Rather, it is imperative that scientists and the science community begins to explore new ways to implement their research other than the push for “evolution” in schools to the extent that communities and children are negatively impacted, or that a grave and destructive precedent is set either way, which seems reminiscent of the past, e.g. church and state fighting for supremacy, such as what happened when the Catholic church used to have the money to have its way in the life of all people under its dominion. The government didn’t tell the Church what to do, but the Church told the government what to do. A quick example is the need for an entire people to convert to the religion which most served the King of England at the time, so he could marry who he wanted to. This was because a Catholic could not have a divorce in those days.

I believe scientists must embrace the natural diversity of human belief, just as they embrace the diversity in all else in nature.

I will point out here before anyone comments that religions spread hate or that Islam is not a religion of peace, that there is plenty of history that proves that Islam and Muslims love peace.

The other thing is, there are more modern examples of science indirectly, causing harm on a large scale to humans as well as the environment, and the less modern, but still unforgettable suffering the Nazis and others like them caused in Europe not only to Jews but to their own citizens, e.g. the orphanages or mental wards which mistreated thousands of children or mental patients, or prisoners, all over the Christian world, as well as modern day China, just to give some examples, and often in the name of science. The Nazis tortured the sick with experiments, and also studied twins in the name of science.

Just the other day someone told me about the practice of feeding sugar or forcing children and the elderly to keep sugar in their mouths, so that the science of tooth decay and ‘cures’ or remedies for that could be found. I can’t say I know if this is true or an urban myth, but it supposedly happened in Sweden.

Readers might like to see the film, The Forgotten Maggies, in relation to this post, about the abuses by both the Church and State in Ireland.

http://www.merdb.cn/watch-2725543-The-Forgotten-Maggies.html 

You can see the synopsis at this link.

Two Hour Debate/Endless Comments

If Atheists believe they are the most intelligent beings in the universe, or at least in our world, then shouldn’t they be kinder, gentler, better, more patient, more open to discuss questions, than others? Why do many atheists seem to be the opposite, and unkind, rough, dishonest, laughing and making stupid comments about theists, closed-minded (they even believe stuff that isn’t in any science text book, yet they call theists stupid? E.g. many atheists make scientific mistakes in their arguments, one says we have “ape brains” another says something else stupid).

I thought evolution meant that you have gotten to a higher stage of development, but atheists often come off as less evolved; they come off as arrogant bastards a lot of the time. Just watch enough videos starring Richard Dawkins and you will see what arrogance is!

In their world, it seems there is no room for other opinions, which is at least dangerous and is also in my own mind, rather a closed-minded approach to understanding what possibilities exist; yes, they say they don’t believe God exists, but without disproving God, Who is after all beyond science's ability to end this debate.

They believe in natural selection, but so do many theists, even some Muslims - we can find points of agreement; if science is correct, why should I argue with it? If I understand the argument, and I see its truthfulness, then I can agree; it has nothing to do with trying to be ‘modern’ or sound smart, etc.

And most theists are not dishonest enough to lie about their beliefs. If modern Christians don’t believe in the story of Genesis is also their right; it doesn’t make them deceivers.

Muslims and Christians (have always in the past, said they) believe that God created Adam and Eve. That we didn’t evolve from a common ancestor with apes (or pre-apes).

The recent debate which created a lot of hype had some refreshing comments by people, who seemed more interested in creating an atmosphere of peace (for once) on the internet than arguing about who is right.

Theists know that atheists think they are living in the past, or are even stupid, so it is nice to see some of them at least acknowledge 'believers' as human beings (who have a right to their beliefs). After all, most of them are not hurting anybody.

Creation vs Evolution debate most recently had theists and atheists sharing common ground for once.

 

This is not the post I promised about Evolution, but I figured to share the post about the debate between Nye 'the science guy' and Ken Ham, who is (I'm assuming) a Christian and debater.