In 1911 the discovery that the world was billions of years old changed our view of the world for ever.
By the end of the 19th century, many geologists still believed the age of the Earth to be a few thousand years old, as indicated by the Bible, while others considered it to be around 100 million years old, in line with calculations made by Lord Kelvin, the most prestigious physicist of his day.
It was against a background of dramatic and exciting scientific discoveries that a young Arthur Holmes (1890-1964) completed his schooling and won a scholarship to study physics at the Royal College of Science in London. There he developed the technique of dating rocks using the uranium-lead method and from the age of his oldest rock discovered that the Earth was at least 1.6 billion years old (1,600 million).
In the 1920s the new theory of continental drift became the great scientific conundrum, and most geologists were unable to accept the concept due to the lack of a mechanism for driving the continents around the globe.
In 1928 Arthur Holmes showed how convection currents in the substratum (now called the mantle) underlying the continents could be this mechanism. This proved to be correct but it was another 40 years before his theories were accepted and the theory of plate tectonics became a reality.
Today, few discussions in geology can occur without reference to geologic time and plate tectonics. They are both integral to our way of thinking about the world. Holmes died in 1964 having lived just long enough to see sea floor spreading confirm his ideas of continental drift.
Do you have any problems catching up to 1911?
What – no fossilized monkeys?
You don’t insinuate there are still evolutionists who disagree with this?
After all, we’re all on board with these ideas including Creationists !
Lol !
heres a Sunday fire starter/ potential thread hijacker for you;
If you’ve seen the History Channels series called The Universe, the episode “The Big Bang and Beyond” lays the claim that the big bang theory serves to prove the idea of creation. That before Einstein the universe was thought to be eternal, without beginning or end, but that his theory’s lead to the discovery of an expanding universe that had a beginning (i.e. a point of creation). Imagine that, its a “created” Universe not an eternal one.
Just another piece of scientific history forgotten.
#2 – DeLeMa –
“…we’re all on board with these ideas including Creationists !
Lol !”
Don’t be so quick to laugh…
Try this.
…and this…
…you’ll play Hell trying to find something so ridiculous that some idiot somewhere won’t believe it.
I’ve got underwear older than most of you!
#4 Try this.
Thanks.
An interesting read, but I would prefer to see the “young Earth” argument made on its own – instead of in the service of propping-up the Bible.
Unfortunately, the only “evidence” they can lay hands on is the Bibble…
#7 – I think your typo is apt.
#7, Lauren,
I second god’s assessment.
#8, …or possibly even more apt, the Babble.
…but again, to some it’s just a bobble, to be seen as a social statement, but largely disregarded
… and then again it’s a bubble, popped at the first horrendous act of godless fate on the faithful
#4, On a Google search of “the winding up dilemma” described in the first link you have, all ten of the results were creationist websites, or were sites disproving this theory. How can the creationists pull this crap out of their… “nose” (I don’t know how strict the moderating is here) and expect people to believe it!
Critical thinking is making a comeback I hope. All religion is man made, each end every one of them and each and every one of them deserve all the satire and blasphemy we can muster.
I hate the story of the geologist who was giving a public talk and a family walked by and after hearing what she had to say the kids were led away with their ears covered by the parents because her talk made the Earth older than the, what, 4400 years the Earth in biblical years was supposed to be. Ignorance like that, I dunno. Sad.
Hey it’s the fossilized shell game. Guess which plate geologic time is under?
Well, clearly the message is getting out. It looks like I’ll be making another contribution to the Creationist Museum!
#14, and the Flat Earth Society, don’t forget them.
Just wondering – – -before plate techtonics and such, what was the explanation for volcanoes?
the religion of evolution is man made. you need more faith to believe “in the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded”
from the goo to the zoo to you. .. hahahaha “mokay boyz!..
#3 .. you might want to see another History channel (and other documentary) that shows slightly different.
The so call “big bang” is also thought to be one of endless cycles of the universe expanding from “a bang” and then contracting to a “black hole singularity”. etc etc.
#5 – If you haven’t washed them for longer than most of us have been around – that would be a problem.
On the other hand, you might not want to want them now because it could release a lot of sequestered carbon. Hmmm….
and yet there are STILL those who beLIEve the earth is oooh… about 6000 years old! O.o
Thanks for the reasoned response Dallas
I would still say that a recurring Big Bang is just another eternal universe theory. But that a single Big Bang is a created universe.
And with out definitive proof either way, the debate goes on….
We are here to ponder. If it were not for thinking beings to wonder there would be no reason for anything to exist. If a tree falls in the woods etc.. The fact that we are here and know it, is proof enough of higher intelligence. We believe in higher beings because we cannot believe that we are the top. And because we cannot be sure, it is safer to honor the invisible and unkown than to find out later that we are it.
>>complete with the inability to accept that most people being
>>called “conservatives” are not adhering to a competing faith,
>>but are simply remembering things that did not work when
>>they were kids.
Again with the “conservatives”. Just like the folks who frolicked with the dinosaurs, most conservatives are long dead and gone. Their race has evolved into the so-called NEOCON, a cowardly, dishonest, self-serving, immoral, unethical, warmongering race of chickenhawks whose driving instinct is self-aggrandizement and monetary gain, preferably at the cost of other people’s childrens’ lives.
Damned Darwinism.
And the young, but bald, Arthur Holmes said the words “1.6 Billion” with his pinky finger to him mouth (aka, a Dr. Evil reference). 🙂
But seriously…. This article illustrates how the “majority” of the academics were WRONG! And one man, or very few men, were right. Until the rest finally go onboard about correct geologic time and plate tectonics. So when I hear about how the “majority of scientists agree that global warming is cause by man”. I have to wonder how long it will be before the majority is again proven WRONG?! Not IF…. but WHEN?
You’ve really got it backward –
What that shows – indeed, what the history of science shows – is how open-minded scientists are – once you come up with solid, verifiable, repeatable evidence.
One person – not even necessarily a professional scientist! – can change the course of science. It’s happened more times than can be counted. Sometimes the change is immediate, sometimes it has taken decades, or even longer. But no matter how wild your idea, if it is backed by solid evidence, the consensus will change.
But rarely does the consensus HAVE to change – and AGW is a fine example of where those who take issue with it have yet to produce the acceptable evidence needed to convince the authorities in the field that their current model is wrong.
When the overwhelming majority of experts in the field say one thing, and a small minority say otherwise, it’s a very safe bet that the majority is correct. But when the minority view is promoted by people and organizations which stand to profit to the tune of trillions of dollars if their view prevails, then the odds of the majority view being the honest – and correct – one go from very likely to a virtual certainty.
Or to put it conversely, the minority view, going by the amount of data which supports it scientifically, is likely to be in error. But when you factor in the astronomical sums of money that it’s promoters stand to gain, it’s virtually certain to be a deliberate deception.
Cui bono? Who benefits? That’s the party who has the motive to lie.
And the relative credibilities of research scientists versus privately-held companies in the most lucrative, profitable and polluting industries on Earth are so totally opposite as to be a joke. Big Bidniss has every reason to lie – trillions of ’em – and has been proven to lie, countless times, throughout their entire existence. And now, all of a sudden, they’re telling the truth? And they wouldn’t stoop to lying to keep that incredible profit stream flowing? Instead, the scientists are the liars??
Riiiiiiight. Suuuure.
Wake up.
#27 Lauren, what you said. Saves me a lot of time.
One robotics company I left was bought out by the competition — they felt robot waterjet cutters were a threat to their reciprocating knife business in the textile and footware industries. Then they fired everyone and threw the tech in the trash. Morans. We were whipping their butts.
The only problem with your analysis Lauren is that not all of the minority are being financed by those with a dog in the hunt. Quite a few actually are reputable and honest and feel differently about the causes of GW. I try to keep an open mind, unlike some of the GW caused by man groups, and when the scientists that declare GW man-made or heavily man made also give up their rather lucrative cash flow from those with a vested interest in GW being mostly or totally man made, then maybe I’ll finally agree.
Now, proceed with your predictable arguement that the money made by or given to those who think GW is man made is purer than money given to those who disagree.
I don’t know your age or most of the others that post in here a lot…..but I am young enough that I will be(hopefully, barring SUV turn overs or some other cause of early demise) here when I supposedly(according to the GW alarmists) will be able to go surfing at my beachfront home in Riverside, Ca. 😉
27–Lauren, you raise a significant point that I would use against your own position.
For some time now I have been an advocate of the Human Caused global warming position. As I continue to read the opposition, I’m not as convinced as I used to be—still am, just not as much.
First Crack–carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas compared to many others.
Second Crack–carbon dioxide rise and fall goes almost opposite to the expected reaction. Explanations of “lag time” are fine, but the evidence is a crack.
Third–Michael Chricton the physician turned novelist wrote a book against it. I don’t know the man. I only assume he is smarter than me, studied the issue, is not biased, and isn’t convinced.
Forth–close to No One, many other factors seem to greatly outweigh the effect of carbon monoxide such as solar cycles, and elliptical path of the earth around Sun? Don’t know the effect except it varies and not often mentioned in the climate models I have seen.
Fifth–Ice pack is growing in South Pole?
Sixth–It was stated on TV last week that IPCC–the UN organization where “all the scientists” agree about the global warming is CHARTERED, and created FOR THE PURPOSE, of summarizing the evidence in support of the Kyoto Protocols. Strong Bias I think.
Sooooo, I still think human caused global warming increase factor is the “best” supported position, but I’m not the advocate I used to be. Too much change in the history of climate, too small a human factor.
So Joshua, even when you wait to see, there still won’t be any proof as to the causation.
Actually there’s an issue beyond the cause of Global Warming.
Is GW bad? No one has proven anything bad will happen. There is consensus that the warming a few centuries ago brought about the end of the Dark Ages. Europe became more hospitable to crops allowing people time to do more than simply try to survive and voila – civilization.
What bad thing will happen because of GW? Beachfront property might spring up in new locations – so what? People have to move, so what? I don’t buy Scott’s vision of a billion displaced folks staggering around looking for someone to eat.