Skip to main content

View Diary: Dear Marco Rubio, the age of the Earth is not in "Dispute" (277 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not all evangelical Protestants are (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HudsonValleyMark

    Republicans.

    •  But the ones who reject scientific evidence are, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hayate Yagami, cybersaur

      or at least we thought they were.

      Do you reject Potassium/Argon or Ur series radiometric dating?

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 08:20:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm an atheist (6+ / 0-)

        and I live in a place where you can see millions of years of rocks in one place.

        I found this with a quick Bing.  If you have something newer, I sure hope I'm wrong.

      •  You wouldn't use K-Ar for planetary age; just (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HudsonValleyMark, ranger995

        Ur-series.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 08:49:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, you need neither U- nor Th- series (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Robobagpiper, Hyuga, gnbhull

          The original old Earth measurements arose before Roentgen discovered Uranium -- remember Lord Kelvin and the age of the Sun?  The earliest evidence of the age of the Earth came from lava flows on Mt. Etna in Sicily.  You don't get to 4.55 GYr -- for that, you need lunar samples; terrestrial samples only get you to >3 GYr -- but you quickly get to many hundreds of MYr Simply by counting them.

          Sssh.  Don't tell the creationists.  They're so busy refuting radiodating that they've completely missed the far simpler, and thus far more directly compelling, argument that they're fools.

          •  Well, to get "the Earth is old", you don't need (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            demimondian

            a specific methodology. You won't get much closer than a couple orders of magnitude, but you'll sure get orders of magnitude older than Bishop Ussher's estimate.

            To get accurate number on how old, you need to use U series on meteoric samples, because of terrestrial resurfacing; and because the lifetimes of other radiometric candidates are generally too short. I say "meteoric" rather than "lunar" because a lunar anorthocite will only get the age at which the moon cooled after the impact between the Earth and a Mars-sized body that formed it; and that the primordial Earth's age will be somewhere in-between those two ages. I guess one might fairly consider the pre-impact proto-Earth a distinct entity, and start counting from the resolidification of a crust on the new Earth-moon system.

            The fun part is factoring out primordial content of daughter products, which is surprisingly easy to do by taking multiple U isotopes, despite creationist claims to the contrary.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 11:23:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  why did we think that, I wonder? (5+ / 0-)

        In the 2004 General Social Survey, 42% of respondents -- including 38% of "strong Democrats" (and 59% of "strong Republicans") -- chose the first of the following three options:

        1. God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.

        2. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.

        3. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.

        I don't immediately have data specifically on the age of the earth, but I think it is a safe bet that a bunch of Democrats are Young Earth Creationists -- although the proportion is a lot lower than for Republicans.

        Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
        Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

        by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 09:16:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  it may be a case of false consensus (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Skipbidder, gnbhull

          I will guess that a large majority (although maybe not nearly as large as I might think) of Kossacks accept that the earth is billions of years old. And the topic comes up (albeit not very often), and I've never seen it disputed here.

          Meanwhile, I will further guess, Democratic politicians know better than to make the age of the earth a campaign issue. So we extrapolate from an extremely unrepresentative convenience sample.

          Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
          Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

          by HudsonValleyMark on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 09:29:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site