You have probably heard the claim that the earth has been scientifically demonstrated to be 4.5 billion years old. What is often not included in that reference is what that figure is based on. After all the earth does not come with a tag saying made by natural processes 4.5 billion BC. It turns out that the theory behind it is not only completely naturalistic, but it is based on a theory of geology that excludes the Genesis Flood and Biblical Creation. It is based on a very specific model of how the earth came into existence and if that model is wrong, which is the case if the Bible is true, then so is this date. in fact, the original paper sort of admits to it.

Foundational to this age calculation is the presupposition that the earth condensed naturalistically out of a cloud of dust and gas. This is despite the fact that gas clouds tend to disperse in space rather than collapse under their gravity. This is because they tend to be too thin for their gravity to overcome the molecular motion, as well as the motion of any dust. Furthermore, the Nebular Hypothesis on which this date is based not only has problems with our own solar system but needs to be patched with the untestable notion of planetary migration to save it from the observations of other star systems.

Within the solar system, we have two major planets and a dwarf planet rotating in the opposite direction from what this hypothesis predicts. These three planetary bodies are Venus, Uranus, and Pluto. The common explanation of asteroid impacts does not work for Uranus and Pluto because the major moons of both planetary bodies still orbit in the same direction as the planetary rotation. Neptune even has a large moon that orbits contrary to the planet's rotation, resulting in the just-so story that it is a captured trans-Neptunian object. Even our own Earth-moon system does not fit the Nebular Hypothesis resulting in the unfalsifiable claim that the Earth was struck by a Mars-size object forming the moon.

It gets even worse when you look at other star systems where in some cases you have planets that are way too close to their stars according to the Nebular Hypothesis, and in some cases, they are way too far from their stars. The solution to this dilemma is called planetary migration. It allows any planet to migrate from where it was supposed to form to where it is actually found making the entire concept untestable and therefore unscientific.

These problems with the Nebula Hypothesis are a strong argument against the earth being 4.5 billion years old because the model on which the figure is based does not work without it. Furthermore, the entire concept fails to be a truly scientific model because it requires untestable just so stories to save it from reality. Consequently, the age commonly cited for the earth in science textbooks and other places doesn't even qualify as science because it is based on a model of the origin of the solar system that does not really work, and it has been patched to the point of being untestable making it unscientific.

Help support these articles.



Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive