提上来回“三棵树”关于那篇“How Old is the Earth？”的文章

注：“三棵树”网友建议我去读读这篇文章：“How Old is the Earth？”。并要求我“不要假装笑就算了，举出一些反驳的论点和论据来”。于是我告诉他我不需要假装笑，并且给他如下回复。大家看看对那篇文章是不是该真笑？


------------------------------------------------------------------------
本来那篇文章不值得一提。不过你既然这么执着，我就给你大致说说它的问题吧：

首先，看看这位作者提出的几点：

第一，放射性同位素碳定年法：他讨论了这个方法的几个前提假设。应该说对这些假设的探讨都是严肃的。但他的结论比较有个人的倾向性：

假设1：活的生物体与环境处于（C14/C12比例的）平衡状态下。

他的质疑是：生物会吃了老一点的食物（别的生物），因此会摄入旧的（C14/C12）比例从而改变其体内的（C12/C14）比值。

他的无知在这里大大的现了一回：这些可以吃的“老一点的食物”能有多老？了不起几年、几十年吧（尤其是在没有冰箱的自然条件下）？可是这点时间根本就在放射性碳定年法的误差范围内。而且“生物吃了几十年老的食物”的几率和占它们食物的比例有多大呢？你自己来回答这个简单问题吧。

假设2：大气中的（C12/C14）比值（在漫长的岁月中）保持不变。

这个假设是值得仔细推敲的。但他的质疑所用的证据——Velikovski的假说--就根本不值一提。金星的形成早有定论，并有无数的天文学观察证据所支持。Velikovski的假说根本就是一个科幻小说。拿一个科幻小说式的假说来置疑有无数证据支持的科学理论和实践，充分显示了他的无知。

当然，抛开他的质疑，我们都可以也应该（用科学的方法，而不是科幻小说）置疑这个假设2。

在实践上，科学家们往往不会轻易相信一个/次的定年结果。他们总要用从不同的地方收集到的不同的样品来反复验证。同时，他们有时也会有机会收集到古代的大气样品（比如封在冰层里的，古代容器里的，等等），这就可以直接做比较了。这样大量的比较的结果指出：这个假设在一定的实验误差范围内相当准确。因此可以用（同时要扣除一些已知的变化）。

假设3：样品处在封闭系统内。

科学家们也知道有些样品不在封闭系统内。但他们可以用上面所说的办法（用许多不同的样品）来反复验证。

假设4：样品内没有C14的放射产物。

我不知道有这个假设。因为测量的是（C14/C12）的比例，而不是放射产物的比例。


第二，其它定年方法：

1。树环定年法

这老兄自以为是的攻击了一番，却没想到树木再老，也不会老过几万年。因此根本不能拿来定几万到几十亿年的年代。因此他的攻击基本上没什么用。光这样一个低级的错误就可以让他这篇文章拿个不及格（如果当term paper来交的话）。

2。月球尘土

这位老兄不知道是从哪里得到的月球落尘数据（有可能是Slusher）？这个数据的牛皮吹的太大了（还有别的计算到284英尺厚的尘土）。而且那些计算结果都被发现是错误的。现在的计算结果发现那月球上的尘土厚度只有很薄的一层（例如有一个结果是大概只有1/3英寸厚）而已。

3。地球磁场的衰变

这个好象是创造论者整天拿来说的事。但并没有科学根据。科学上对地球磁场的发现是：在大部分时间内，地球的磁场并没有多少变化。但有周期性的倒转。而且这个周期可以用来与别的定年法互相验证，效果很好。


4。地球的自转和月球的远离

这位老兄的小学数学真的是不行。按照他的4cm/year的数据，要想让地球和月球相接触，也得要94亿年（地球的年龄是大约46亿年）。即使是他所说的20亿年，也远远超过了他宣称的一万年。

5。缺失的氦

他真的没玩过/见过氦气球？他不知道氦气会一直往上升？这些氦气最后就在大气层的顶端慢慢的逸散掉了。这么简单的常识都没有，学什么人攻击科学的结论？

6。彗星问题

一个人不需要多少天文知识就可以看出他的论点有问题。他说：“Short period comets can't exit for mor than 10,000 years.”人们不禁要问，那“long period comets”呢？它们能存在多久？

他的论点就好象是在计算一个家族活着的人的年龄时，说：“既然这个家族的最小的人的年龄只有3个月，这个家族活着的人的年龄不可能超过3个月。”

实际上早年跟太阳系一起形成的彗星大多数已经被各大行星和太阳“吃”掉了。现在的彗星绝大部分是从奥托云（太阳系外围的一大团尘埃）来的。

你看，这样一篇垃圾文章不拿个大0蛋还有什么公正评分可言？

------------------------------------------------------------------------

原文如下：


HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

Compiled by Rev. Jack Barr


Both creationists and evolutionists spend a great deal of time trying to find the exact age of the earth, and for a good reason. As extensive evidence continues to unfold that indicates the earth is less than 10,000 years old, the evolutionary theory falls apart. If the earth is truly less than 10,000 years old, it would be impossible for man to have evolved from a lower order in that amount of time.
Let's look for a moment, at how evolutionists date the age of the earth.


HOW THE RADIOCARBON DATING METHOD WORKS

The radiocarbon dating method was developed by Professor Willard Libby from California, for which he was awarded a Nobel prize. It is quite accurate in many applications for which the specimens are only a few thousand years old.

Here is how it works. The stratosphere above our earth is bombarded with cosmic rays from the sun, which converts the N14 in the stratosphere to radioactive carbon, or C14. This weak isotope is a part of our environment, and is absorbed by all living organisms (plants and animals) along with another version of carbon, C12, which is not radioactive. As long as the organism is alive, the ratio of C12 to C14 in the organism is theoretically the same as that of the environment; that is, the organism is in balance with the environment.

Once the organism dies, there is no longer a carbon intake. The amount of C12 in the organism remains constant, but the radioactive C14 decomposes with a half life of 5730 years into nitrogen. Nitrogen is a gas, which leaves the organism. This means after 5730 years, there will only be half as much C14 as when the organism died. Thus, by measuring the ratio of C12 to C14, one can (at least theoretically) determine when the organism died.

For practical reality, however, this doesn't always work. Researchers testing the shell of a live clam showed this live clam had been dead for 300 years. Dried up seal- carcasses only thirty years old have tested as old as 4600 years. Fresh carcasses often date as old as 1300 years.


Why is this so?


Radiocarbon dating makes several assumptions. If any of these is wrong, the results can be in error.

Assumption 1:
The Living Organism is in Balance with the Environment
This method assumes the C14 is absorbed by the organism at the same rate as the C12 from the environment. This is not always true. Some organisms have some type of internal metabolism that can reject the C14 more effectively than the C12. At death, then, these organisms have abnormally low C14 levels and appear much older than they really are.

In addition, while living the organism may eat and metabolize organic material that is old, thus loading their own system with the outdated organic material that returns the false reading.


Assumption 2:
The C12/C14 Level of the Atmosphere has remained constant.
Another assumption made in radiocarbon dating is that the ratio of C12 to the radioactive C14 has remained constant for thousands of years. Scientists today have a growing conviction that this ratio has not been constant. Immanuel Velikovsky and other scientists believe that cataclysmic events in the history of the earth could have radically altered the stratosphere, affecting the amount of C14 created.

Velikovsky, writing in WORLDS IN COLLISION, believed that the history of the earth was dramatically altered by the close approaches of Mars and Venus. The book described Venus as originally a planet which passed the earth as a comet only 3500 years ago and was captured by our solar system. Velikovsky believed the flood, the parting of the Red Sea as the Israelites escaped Egypt, the manna from heaven, and the day the sun stood still as the Israelites battled their enemies were all related to natural events.

For years several noted astronomers vigorously blocked the publishing of this book by Macmillan, as these concepts were contradictory to their own theories and the publishing would have affected their own income and status. With the landing of the astronauts on the moon, however, the dust levels that should have been several feet high for the Big Bang theory were found as only a few inches high, giving credence to Velikovsky's theories and giving him fresh recognition during the last years of his life.

Today more and more scientific evidence gives proof to Velikovsky's theories. The Bible describes the long life- times of early man, perhaps due to the increased cloud cover at that time. The lower levels of C14 at that time would make the current samples appear older than they actually are. Evidence exists that the earth's magnetic poles switch occasionally, as old samples often show magnetic patterns that do not match with he current magnetic alignment. Tropical plants have been found buried in Sweden that could not have there unless Sweden was, at one time, a lush tropical paradise.


Assumption 3:
The dating method assumes the sample is in a closed system.
Once the organism has died, the theory assumes the only continuing process is the decay of the C14. This, in fact, is seldom true. Ground water can leach C14 from a rock. Heat, changes in the magnetic field, and other factors can affect the ratio of C12 to C14.


Assumption 4:
There are no daughter elements in the sample originally.
There is no way to know how much radioactive daughter elements are actually in the sample at death. Other elements can affect the ratio.


OTHER DATING METHODS


Other dating methods are often used that have similarities to the radiocarbon method. One popular method is potassium-argon dating. Radioactive potassium is found in small quantities in some rocks. This decomposes into calcium and argon. Another alternative is uranium-lead dating. With uranium-lead dating, radioactive uranium decomposes into lead and other elements. The half-life is a long 4 1/2 billion years. All of these suffer from the same basic assumptions.

Tree-Ring Dating
Another method of dating that is popular with some scientists is tree-ring dating. When a tree is cut, you can study a cross-section of the trunk and determine its age. Each year of growth produces a single ring. Moreover, the width of the ring is related to environmental conditions at the time the ring was formed.

The Bristle cone Pine, found particularly in California, is a very old tree, with specimens supposably dating as old as 7000 years. Scientists have studied the rings on these trees in an attempt to date the tree and the origins of the earth.

Unfortunately, this dating method leaves much to be desired. Ring patterns vary considerably between trees of similar ages. To resolve the discrepancies, patterns are compared between several trees, with the attempt made to identify common years in several ring patterns. The key rings that are used to align different trees are the rings for drought years, or the narrowest rings. In some cases, however, a drought year ring may be missing altogether, falling on the ring for an adjacent year.

This leads to what is known as the ''missing ring'' problem. To solve this, the scientists fall back to radiocarbon dating to identify the rings more completely. This, in turn, leads to circular logic; if the radiocarbon dating is incorrect, the resulting ring dating will also be incorrect. In the final analysis, the BRISTLE CONE Pines still hide their secret.


HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?


There are many methods that can be used to find the actual age of the earth, as various effects can be measured over a period of time and used to establish the historical time line.

The Shrinking Sun
Since 1836, observations of the sun indicate it is shrinking about five feet an hour. Studies show this has been true for at least 400 years. At this rate, 100,000 years ago the sun would be twice as large as it is today. Twenty million years ago the sun would have touched the earth.


The Moon's Dust
Interplanetary dust and meteors is depositing dust on the moon at the rate of at least 14,300,000 tons per year. At this rate, if the moon were 4.5 billion years old there would be at least 440 feet of dust on the moon. The astronauts, however, found a layer only 1/8 to three inches thick. Three inches would take only 8000 years. Even evolutionists believe the moon is the same age as the earth, giving the earth's age as only 8000 years.


The Magnetic Field
The earth has a magnetic field that is constantly decreasing due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The half-life of the magnetic field is 1400 years. Only 2800 years ago the magnetic field would be four times as strong as it is now. Only 10,000 years ago the magnetic field would be as strong as a magnetic star and be a nuclear power source as the sun. For this reason the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old.


The Earth's Rotation
The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing down at about .00002 seconds a year. The lost energy is transferred to the moon. The moon, therefore, is slowly moving away from the earth at about 4 centimeters a year. This would put the moon in contact with the earth less than 2 billion years ago. Yet, if the moon were closer than about 11,500 miles, the moon would be broken into tiny pieces, much as the rings of Saturn.


The Missing Helium
Helium is generated as radioactive uranium decays. This is known as radiogenic helium, and is the primary source of helium in the earth's atmosphere. If the earth were really 4.5 billion years old as claimed by the evolutionists, the atmosphere would be saturated with this helium. But it isn't. Where did it go? It can't escape to space. The simple answer, of course, is that the earth isn't really that old.


The Comet Mystery
Comets, as they orbit the sun, are literally torn apart by gravitational forces, internal explosions, and solar winds. Short period comets can't exist for more than 10,000 years. Most astronomers believe that comets originated at the same time as the solar system. That limits the age of the solar system to about 10,000 years.


SUMMARY


Putting this all together, there is growing evidence that the solar system is certainly less than 10,000 years old. As mentioned at the beginning, the issue is particularly important, as if the solar system is less than 10,000 years old there is not enough time for man to have evolved from a lower form.