You have heard it, “He’s as old as the hills.” Or “She’s older than dirt.” (I think I have a pair of shoes that fit in that category.) So how old are the hills, and how old is dirt?
A couple of days ago while skimming the web news headlines, my hubby busted out laughing. “Here’s a headline that doesn’t make much sense.”
Oldest Rocks on Earth Found.
“Shouldn't they all be the same age?” he said.
If you believe in creation—God spoke, it happened, & it was good—yes. At least I would think so. But of course this bunch of questionable babble was written from the perspective that the earth was “…formed about 4.6 billion years ago from a disk of gas and dust circling the sun.”
I interrupt this thought with a question. If you believe all that hog-wash, where did the dust and gas come from? Better yet, where did the sun come from? Okay—back to the news.
According to the article, the earth has been recycling itself over the last few billion years. You know—plates shift, volcanoes erupt, melt down in the middle—that type of thing. And now some geologists have decided they found some old stubborn rocks that have refused the recycling process. They claim these rocks are 4.28 billion years old.
I don’t mean to be throwing old rocks at these geologists; I’m sure their mommas are proud of them. But I have my doubts. First, the article says that in 2001 geologists found this expanse of bedrock. So now 7+ years later they have finally decided how old these rocks are? I think maybe they should not take such long coffee breaks so they wouldn’t be so far behind at work!
I wonder what kind of a GPA these guys had. The article first says that the rocks are 4.28 billion years old, and then later it states that they are from 3.8 to 4.28 billion years old. There is a deference there of .48 billion years. That’s—well—that’s a lot of years. (My son-in-law can figure it out.) So I’m thinking these guys are neither fast workers nor are they very accurate. (What are they adding to their coffee?)
They may be stretching their story just a bit. The article says that the oldest know rocks (before this discovery) were 4.03 billion years old. These are all big numbers, and I’m fairly simple-minded, but isn’t 3.8 billion younger than 4.03 billion? So are these rocks REALLY the oldest rocks on earth? Maybe. Only if their real age leans to the higher end of our not-too-precise geologists’ estimations. It all sounds a little crazy if you ask me.
As a writer, I’m glad it was not my job to report that story. I would have peppered the page with words like assumes, thinks, guesses, & supposes. I have a hard time writing fiction.
Back to my original question: how old are the hills & how old is dirt?
A couple of days ago while skimming the web news headlines, my hubby busted out laughing. “Here’s a headline that doesn’t make much sense.”
Oldest Rocks on Earth Found.
“Shouldn't they all be the same age?” he said.
If you believe in creation—God spoke, it happened, & it was good—yes. At least I would think so. But of course this bunch of questionable babble was written from the perspective that the earth was “…formed about 4.6 billion years ago from a disk of gas and dust circling the sun.”
I interrupt this thought with a question. If you believe all that hog-wash, where did the dust and gas come from? Better yet, where did the sun come from? Okay—back to the news.
According to the article, the earth has been recycling itself over the last few billion years. You know—plates shift, volcanoes erupt, melt down in the middle—that type of thing. And now some geologists have decided they found some old stubborn rocks that have refused the recycling process. They claim these rocks are 4.28 billion years old.
I don’t mean to be throwing old rocks at these geologists; I’m sure their mommas are proud of them. But I have my doubts. First, the article says that in 2001 geologists found this expanse of bedrock. So now 7+ years later they have finally decided how old these rocks are? I think maybe they should not take such long coffee breaks so they wouldn’t be so far behind at work!
I wonder what kind of a GPA these guys had. The article first says that the rocks are 4.28 billion years old, and then later it states that they are from 3.8 to 4.28 billion years old. There is a deference there of .48 billion years. That’s—well—that’s a lot of years. (My son-in-law can figure it out.) So I’m thinking these guys are neither fast workers nor are they very accurate. (What are they adding to their coffee?)
They may be stretching their story just a bit. The article says that the oldest know rocks (before this discovery) were 4.03 billion years old. These are all big numbers, and I’m fairly simple-minded, but isn’t 3.8 billion younger than 4.03 billion? So are these rocks REALLY the oldest rocks on earth? Maybe. Only if their real age leans to the higher end of our not-too-precise geologists’ estimations. It all sounds a little crazy if you ask me.
As a writer, I’m glad it was not my job to report that story. I would have peppered the page with words like assumes, thinks, guesses, & supposes. I have a hard time writing fiction.
Back to my original question: how old are the hills & how old is dirt?
They might be younger than you think!
5 comments:
I'm not really a young earth guy, but it is funny how people talk about science being so precise. Materialism and the scientific method, like any human knowledge, it tends to be a bit theoretical and fuzzy around the edges.
HHHMMM.... let me see. How do they know just how far back what they are using can go that far back....then something that has always bothered me. If we came from apes or monkeys how come there are still apes and monkeys. There is a woman I know who thinks that Cain and Able married monkeys or apes,,,, I think she is nuts....
I love your spunk, girlfriend!
It is sad how evolution has tainted everything. I can't trust a big percentage of even what the doctors tell me because of the evolutionary thinking that goes into their medicine (like saying certain body parts have no use- they are just left over from evolution). What's up with that?!
My girls and I were having a conversation about this the other day and they told me that they are now being taught that the monkeys we were suppose to come are coming from fish. That means that we come for monkeys that come from fish. I agree with Brittany. Why are there still monkeys and fish now. Kyndra as well told me that they come form the fish ever 1000 years. What ever they say. I then told the girls about this new lab I waw on the TV the other day and this lab is going to reproduce the big bang theory at sometime. People are so clueless.
Thanks, everybody, for your comments. It is sad that our kids learn so much fuzzy science in school. Do you think it is a waste of time and tax dollars? Another reason we turned our home into a school when our kids were young.
Post a Comment