Where did the Earth come from?

by Tracy V. Wilson

A solar nebula is a spinning disc of matter around a new star. Image courtesy NASA

Philosophers, religious scholars and scientists have lots of ideas on the creation of the universe and the Earth. Currently, the most prevalent scientific theory, known as the Big Bang Theory, is that the universe originated in an enormous explosion. Before the Big Bang, all of the matter and energy now in the universe was contained in a singularity. A singularity is a point with an extremely high temperature and infinite density. It's also what's found at the center of a black hole. This singularity floated in a complete vacuum until it exploded, flinging gas and energy in all directions. Imagine a bomb going off inside an egg -- matter moved in all directions at high speeds. As the gas from the explosion cooled, various physical forces caused particles to stick together. As they continued to cool, they slowed down and became more organized, eventually growing into stars. This process took about a billion years. About five billion years ago, some of this gas and matter became our sun. At first, it was a hot, spinning cloud of gas that also included heavier elements. As the cloud spun, it collected into a disc called a solar nebula. Our planet and others probably formed inside this disc. The center of the cloud continued to condense, eventually igniting and becoming a sun. There's no concrete evidence for exactly how the Earth formed within this nebula. Scientists have two main theories. Both involve accretion, or the sticking together of molecules and particles:

1. Similar elements stick together. 2. Heavier particles sink toward the center of the mass. 3. Outgassing creates the planet's atmosphere.

Homogenous accretion: Similar elements stick together, creating a solid mass. The heat generated in this process melts the particles. The heavier elements sink to the center because of gravity, creating the Earth's sold core. Outgassing from this solid body creates the atmosphere.

Heterogeneous accretion: First, particles of metal stick together, creating the Earth's core. Lighter elements stick to this core as it continues to cool. The gravity of this mass attracts most of the atoms that make up the atmosphere.

1. Heavier elements collect in the nebula. 2. Lighter particles adhere to this mass.3. The atmosphere comes from outgassing and the collection of gaseous particles.

Both of those theories use the same basic idea -- about 4.6 billion years ago, the Earth formed as particles collected within a giant disc of gas orbiting a star. Once the sun ignited, it blew all of the extra particles away, leaving the solar system as we know it. The exact process probably included both homogenous and heterogeneous accretion. At first, the Earth was very hot and volcanic. A solid crust formed as the planet cooled, and impacts from asteroids and other debris caused lots of craters. As the planet continued to cool, water filled the basins that had formed in the surface, creating oceans. Through earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other factors, the Earth's surface eventually reached the shape that we know today.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question776.htm

How Old is the Earth According to the Bible and Science?

by Rich Deem

INTRODUCTION
The age of the earth has been a topic of debate among Christians over the last two centuries. Several Christian ministries promote the idea that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, which they say comes from the Bible. In reality, the Bible makes no claim as to the age of the earth, although it does establish a minimum age. This page examines some of the history of the controversywhat the Bible actually says and does not sayand the scientific evidence surrounding the age of the earth.

Age of the earth according to the Bible

The following is a summary of the biblical evidence presented on this website regarding the age of the earth. For more detailed explanations of each topic, please click on the associated link.

History of the age of the earth

As indicated earlier, the Bible does not fix the age of the earth, contrary to the claims of Answers in Genesis.1Historically, their claim comes from the work of James Ussher, Bishop in the Church of Ireland, from 1625 to 1656. Archbishop Ussher took the genealogies of Genesis, assuming they were complete, and calculated all the years to arrive at a date for the creation of the earth on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C.2 Of course, even assuming the method was valid, such an exact date is not possible from the genealogies of the Bible (Ussher assumed all the years the patriarchs lived were exactly 365.25 days long and that they all died the day before their next birthday). There are a number of other assumptions implicit in the calculation. The first, and foremost, assumption is that the genealogies of Genesis are complete, from father to son throughout the entire course of human existence. The second assumption is that the Genesis creation "days" were exactly 24-hours in length. It turns out that both assumptions are false.

Incomplete genealogies

Biblical Genealogies

Although Archbishop Ussher assumed the Genesis genealogies were complete, it is clear from the rest of the Bible that those genealogies were telescoped (some names were left out for the sake of brevity), which is common in biblical genealogies but rare in modern genealogies. Similarly, the key genealogical terms (such as "son" and "father") have much broader meanings in Hebrew than their corresponding English words. The Hebrew word translated "son" can also have the meaning of "grandson," "great grandson," "descendant," etc.3 Likewise, the Hebrew word translated "father" can mean "grandfather," "great grandfather," "ancestor," etc.4 An accurate understanding of biblical genealogies is difficult, yet it is important for the understanding of Scripture. Having a proper understanding of biblical genealogies is a prerequisite to attempting to address the Genesis genealogies. By cross referencing the biblical genealogies with other events dated in the Bible, one can find instances where numerous genealogies were telescoped, resulting in the exclusion of numerous generations of individuals. When examining individual genealogies, one can find examples where individuals are excluded or added to the lists found in Genesis. The fact that the genealogies of the Bible are given symmetrically (where the numbers of generations in each group are identical) lends credence to the argument that they are representative of generations found throughout human history. More information about the biblical genealogies can be found in our article, The Genesis Genealogies: Are They Complete?

Length of creation days

Most people who read English translations of the Bible assume that the English words have the same meaning as the original languages in which the Bible was written (Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament). In fact, the original biblical languages contained many fewer words than modern English, which means that the words in those languages had more different meanings. In the Genesis 1 creation account, each "day" ends as "evening and morning 'n' day,"5 where "n" is the day's number. Although many Christians claim this makes the days exactly 24-hours in length, the Hebrew word translated "day" in English actually has three literal translations; the daylight portion of a 24-hour day, a 24-hour day, and a long, unspecified period of time (as in "day of the dinosaurs").6The Hebrew word translated "evening" also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word translated "morning" also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage.7 Our English

expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. The intended meaning of the word should be determined from the context. More information and examples can be found in our article Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days.

24-hour days?
Although some Christians claim the days of creation are exactly 24-hours in length, it is apparent from the literal reading of the Genesis 1 text that this is not so. Two days stand out, in particular. On the third day, God created the plants. The particulars are important, so let's look at what Genesis 1 says: Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so. And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:11-12) The interesting part of the account is that God did not create the plants in the manner we might assume He did. Instead of creating a world filled with full-grown plants, God actually created seeds and planted those. We understand this from the word "sprout," 8 which refers to God allowing the earth to produce plants through germination (sprouting). The Hebrew word dasha tells us that God used processes identical to what we see on the earth today. Plants spouted, grew to maturity, and produced seeds. Several kinds of plants are described. The Hebrew word deshe9 refers primarily to grasses; the word eseb10 refers primarily to herbs and the words peri11 ets12 refer to fruit trees. Some Christians claim that God could have sped up the process so that it all this sprouting and growing happened within a period of 24-hours. However, the text clearly states that the landproduced the vegetation and trees. Conjecture about what God could have done to speed up the process have no biblical support and directly contradict what the text actually says. Since fruit trees take several years to mature and produce fruit, the third "day" must have been at leastseveral years long. The sixth day was also a very busy "day." On the sixth day, God created the nephesh (soulish) animals, including the wild animals (carnivores), cattle (herbivores) and "creeping things" (rodents?) (Genesis 1:25). Then God created Adam, the first man (Genesis 1:27, 2:7). He placed the man into a special garden that He had planted (Genesis 2:8). Again, God was playing farmer by planting the garden and letting it grow (Genesis 2:9). Adam was placed into the garden "to work it and take care of it" (Genesis 2:15). We don't know how long Adam worked the garden before God gave him another assignment. However, it wouldn't have been much "work" if Adam was there for less than 24 hours. Next, God had Adam give names to "all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air" (Genesis 2:19). The process would have required Adam naming tens of thousands of species (minimum). Even naming one animal every ten seconds would have taken Adam several days, at minimum. Then God put Adam to sleep and created Eve from part of Adam's side (Genesis 2:22-23). Adam's response to Eve's creation is also telling, since upon seeing Eve for the first time, Adam said "at last."13 This is not exactly the response one would have expected from a man who had waited for less than one day (or else Adam was the most impatient man in the history of humanity). So, we must conclude that the sixth day was much longer than 24 hours, and probably took at least several years, based on Adam's response. For more information, see our article Genesis 1: The Literal Interpretation of the Creation Account.

The seventh day

Besides the biblical evidence that at least some of the Genesis "days" are long periods of time, Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day: This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. ( Genesis 2:4) In addition, the seventh day of Genesis is not closed: Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. (Genesis 2:3) In all other days the text says, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day." In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest: "For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. ( Hebrews 4:4-11) By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest from creating has been at least 6,000 years long, since it continues to today. God's seventh day of rest from creating will end when He creates the new heavens and new earth.

Age of humanity
Other than incomplete genealogies, there are other measures of the age of humanity found in the Bible. First, the Bible says that the Lord made a covenant and commanded his law to 1,000 generations: Remember His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations, (1 Chronicles 16:15) He has remembered His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations, (Psalm 105:8) but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:6) but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Deuteronomy 5:10) Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. (Deuteronomy 7:9)

Unless those generations are only 6 years long, these verses indicate that humanity has been around much longer than 6,000 years. In most instances, a biblical generation is ~40 years long,14 meaning that human beings have been around for at least 40,000 years. Another, less accurate way to look at the age of humanity is to compare an early biblical event with earth's natural history. One example is the person Peleg, of whom it is said "for in his days the earth was divided..." (Genesis 10:25) This dividing of the earth was likely a

result of the removal of land bridges at the end of the last interglacial period, about 12,000 years ago. During this time, seal levels rose several hundred feet as continental ice sheets melted and flowed into the oceans. Assuming the biblical genealogies were complete, we could calculate that Peleg lived ~4,000 years ago. However, since the dividing of the earth really occurred 12,000 years ago, one can determine that the genealogies represent only one third of the actual generations (12,000 4,000). This would place the beginning of humanity at ~24,000 years ago, assuming the missing genealogies are missing at the same rate throughout human history. Since it would seem likely that more of the earlier genealogies are missing, the estimate is likely low, probably being more in line with the biblical 40,000 years. From a scientific standpoint, I would place the creation of Adam as the first modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens), corresponding with the explosion of sophisticated tool making, art, and religious worship in Europe, about 50,000 years ago. 15 I do not believe that Adam was a Neanderthal, Homo erectus, or other hominid species found in the fossil record, but a fully modern, spiritual human being.

Summary of biblical evidence

Contrary to the calculation of Archbishop Ussher, it seems that the biblical genealogies are telescoped, representing only a small percentage of the actual human generations. Therefore, the time that humanity has existed on earth is in the tens of thousands of years rather than thousands of years. However, humanity was the very last of God's creations, on the sixth days. The days of creation can be shown to be longer than ordinary calendar days, with at least two of the days being years long or longer (in addition to the seventh day, which is a minimum of thousands of years long). So, although the Bible may give us an approximate date for the creation of human beings, we can only guess at how long the other creation "days" are. However, God has given us another "book" that testifies to His power and creative abilitynone other than the creation itself. The Bible explicitly tells us that God's creation is a reliable witness for the truth about God's power and righteousness. The Bible also says that one can see the truth about God from His creation, so that unbelievers are "without excuse" in denying God's "eternal power and divine nature."16 So, the Bible says that we can learn about God from His creation. Let's do that!

Age of the earth according to science

Zircon

The age of the earth can be measured by numerous different techniques, most of which provide just a minimum age. The absolute age of the earth has been most accurately measured through radioactive decay of its rocks. Because of plate tectonics (which recycles the earth's crust) and the late heavy bombardment, none of the original rock formations appear on the surface of the earth at this time. So, the oldest known rock formations have been dated to 4.0-4.2 billion years old.17 However, tiny zircons, some of the hardest minerals on earth, have survived these catastrophic events and have been reliably dated to 4.4 billion years old.18 Rocks returned from the Apollo moon missions,19 along with meteorites derived from Mars20 have been dated at 4.5 billion years old. Meteorites from the solar system that have landed on the earth have been dated to 4.56 billion years old, which establishes the date at which the solar system and all its worlds were created.

Radioactive decay

Radioactive Table of Elements

There are over 100 elements in the periodic table (right). The properties of each element are determined by the number of protons and neutrons in each element's atoms. The atomic number (which defines each element) is a function of the number of protons (positively charged), which is exactly balanced by the number of electrons (negatively charged). The number of neutrons (each consisting of a proton and electron, being chargeneutral) within each atom is usually about the same as the number of protons, although some elements can exist in different forms (called isotopes) based upon different numbers of neutrons. A fundamental physical law, called the weak nuclear force, determines the stability of atoms that contain differing numbers of neutrons. Some isotopes are somewhat or very unstable and decay in a predictable way and at a predictable rate. Depending upon the isotope, this decay can occur in several different ways. One form of radioactive decay consists of a neutron decaying into a proton and electron, which is ejected from the nucleus. The atom's atomic number increases by one, so it becomes one element higher on the periodic table, although its mass remains about the same. In other forms of radioactive decay, a proton combines with an electron to form a neutron, resulting in its atomic number decreasing by one. Still another form of radioactive decay results in the emission of an alpha particle (two neutrons and two protons), which lowers the atomic number by 2 and mass by 4. Both the original amount of an element and its decay product(s) can be measured to determine the age of the sample.

Isotopes and the age of the earth

The important thing about radioactive decay is that is provides us with clocks that allow us to determine the ages of various materials on the earth. The stability of a particular isotope determines its "half-life," the amount of time required for half of the atoms to decay. Halflives of isotopes vary from billions of years (or longer) to fractions of a second. The existence of certain isotopes on the earth give us a minimum age for the earth. It is significant that there are over 150 unstable isotopes, although the vast majority of those do not exist naturally on the planet. It turns out that every isotope (other than those which are products of other radioactive decay or are formed today) with a half-life less than 80 million years do not exist.21 One could make the claim that maybe God didn't want to create isotopes with "short" half-lives (other than carbon-14). However, the most compelling answer is that all those isotopes with short half-lives have completely decayed over the earth's 4.5 billion year history. An earth that was only tens of thousands of years old would be expected to contain isotopes with half lives less than thousands of years long. However, there are none, with the exception of carbon-14, which is formed continually in the earth's atmosphere, through the bombardment of atmospheric nitrogen-14 with cosmic rays. Some young earth creationists have attempted to get around the radioisotope problem by claiming that the half-lives of radioactive elements were shorter in the past. However, since the halflives of radioisotopes vary over many orders of magnitude, this would require that God would have had to have changed pre-fall or pre-flood physics to adjust the decay rates of individual isotopes more or less compared to others. Needless to say, creationists who propose such special pleading have never produced any kind of coherent scientific model for how this contrived idea might have been accomplished. In addition, the Bible tells us that the physics of the universe are constant and "fixed," 22 suggesting that such special pleading is incongruent with biblical theology.

Dating of meteorites
Because of the earth's aggressive tectonic activity, it was anticipated that dating of the earth's rocks would yield a minimum, but probably "young" date for the earth. As stated previously, the oldest rock formations are just over 4.2 billion years old, while the earth's oldest minerals are 4.4 billion years old. Since the moon has no measureable tectonics, its oldest rocks date from 4.5 billion years ago. With the assumption that all the solar system bodies were formed at the same time,23 scientists have dated meteorites to determine the age of the solar system. Using different isochron methods, the dates for all these meteorites fall in the same rangefrom 4.5-4.6 billion years ago.

Isochron Dating of Meteorites24

Isochron Age (billions of years) Meteorite
St. Severin Juvinas

Pb-Pb
4.543 0.019 4.556 0.012

Sm-Nd
4.55 0.33 4.56 0.08

Rb-Sr
4.51 0.15 4.50 0.07

Re-Os
4.68 0.15

Ar-Ar

Isochron Dating of Meteorites24

Isochron Age (billions of years) Meteorite
Allende

Pb-Pb
4.553 0.004

Sm-Nd

Rb-Sr

Re-Os

Ar-Ar
4.55 0.03

Other dating techniques

Radioactivity is not the only means of measuring the age of the earth, although it does give us the most accurate measure. However, other techniques allow us to calculate a minimum age for the earth. Below is a table of these techniques, all of which show the earth is much older than 6,000 years.

Techniques for Measuring the Earth's Age

MinimumAge of the formation (yrs.)
4.5 billion19 4.5 billion24 4.5 billion25

Part of God's Creation

Age of moon rocks Age of meteorites Accumulation of space dust on the moon (at the measured rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year) Age of earth rocks Relaxation times of star clusters Erosion on Mercury Mars, and Moon Length of days of coral fossils Accumulation of sodium in the oceans Rate of continental drift to form the the Atlantic Ocean Reversals of the earth's magnetic pole recorded in the Atlantic Ocean sea bottom Erosion of the Grand Canyon

4.2 billion17 4 billion26 4 billion27 370 million28 260 million29 200 million30 80 million31

17 million32

Techniques for Measuring the Earth's Age

MinimumAge of the formation (yrs.)
23.5 million33 12.4 million34

Part of God's Creation

Geometric measurement to the galaxy NGC4258 Carbonate deposits: The Great Bahama Bank, off the coast of Florida, has multiple layers over 14,500 feet thick There are sedimentary rock formations on Mars that are over 4 kilometers thick. Such layers would require tens to hundreds of millions of years of running water to form. In addition there must have been millions of years for all the water to have disappeared, since Mars is now extremely dry. (View pictures from the article) Ooids (small spheroidal bodies): Formation for adding many layers of mineral deposits involves massive time elements. The Green River annual layers (alternating Summer calcium carbonate and Winter organic layers) Geometric measurement to the galaxy M33 Evaporites: When bodies of salt water are trapped so that circulation is limited, evaporation produces precipitation of calcium carbonate, then calcium sulfate and finally calcium chloride out of the water. Each layer takes several years to form. The Delaware Basin formation is 1,400 feet thick, consisting of 200,000 layers, requiring at least 600,000 years to form. The Mediterranean Sea floor is underlain by about 7,000 feet of evaporites, requiring millions of years to form and evaporation of a 60 miles depth of salt water. Length of time that surface rocks have been exposed to cosmic rays (Antarctic rocks) Huge stalactites, stalagmites, and columns in the Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico (Carlsbad reference) Vostok ice core in Antarctica Thickness of coral reefs

10 million35

>7 million36

4 million37

2.4 million38 >3 million39

3 million40

500,00041

420,00042 130,00043

Techniques for Measuring the Earth's Age

MinimumAge of the formation (yrs.)
100,00044

Part of God's Creation

Organic banks (The Capitan Reef of West Texas, 2,000 feet thick in places, with fossilized remains of organisms.) Radiocarbon dating of wood (upper limit of 14C dating method) Bristlecone pine trees in California

50,00045 11,00046 millions47

Dolomite formation: Replacement of calcium carbonate particles in lime sediment or lime rock gives strong evidence of vast amounts of time required. Rate is as slow as 200 million years/mm.

CONCLUSION
The Bible establishes a minimum date for the creation of human beings on the sixth "day" of ~50,000 years ago. However, because the Bible clearly indicates the length of the previous five creation "days," are longer than ordinary solar days, we must look to God's creation to establish an accurate date for the length of the days and the age of the earth. The age of the earth is most accurately established by examining the age of its rocks, along with the age of rocks from the moon and meteorites, which were formed around the same time. All these measurements indicate that the earth is just over 4.5 billion years old. Measurement of the ages of some of earth's features establish a minimum age for those features that is in the hundred of thousands to millions of years. Since most of the measurement merely involve the counting of annual layers, they are unlikely to be grossly inaccurate. Therefore, the young earth paradigm that the earth is merely 6,000 years old is falsified by both the Bible and science. The vast ages of the earth does not diminish the power and glory of God, but establishes that God thought that preparing the earth for human habitation was worth the billions of years of preparation. Since God is not subject to the temporal dimension of this universe,48 it all happened "instantly" for Him. "But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you; And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you. "Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you; And let the fish of the sea declare to you. "Who among all these does not know That the hand of the LORD has done this, In whose hand is the life of every living thing, And the breath of all mankind? "Does not the ear test words, As the palate tastes its food? (Job 12:7-11) Cuntos Aos Tiene La Tierra Segn La Biblia Y La Ciencia?

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html

When Did Life on Earth Begin? Ask a Rock

Geology
Posted: 10/14/02 Author: David Tenenbaum

Summary: Some of the oldest rocks on Earth, found in Greenland, hold important clues to life's beginnings. The problem is, experts disagree both about how to interpret the clues and about how old the rocks really are.

When Did Life on Earth Begin? Ask a Rock.

Does the first evidence of life date to 3.85 billion years ago (Ga), or 3.65 Ga? A 200-million-years discrepancy may seem trivial almost 4 billion years after the fact. And yet scientists continue to debate whether some of the oldest rocks ever found date to 3.85 Ga, or "just" 3.65 Ga. The discrepancy matters because the rocks, however old they are, indicate that life already existed at the time they formed. The dispute is not just a matter of how early life began, however, but under what conditions: The earlier date was during the tail end of an asteroid storm called the "late heavy bombardment," while the later date was after the bombardment ceased. For astrobiology, the issue could hardly have greater weight. What conditions allowed life to emerge? How quickly after the planet coalesced from primordial dust and gas did chemicals organize themselves into selfreplicating, evolving systems -- into life? And what evidence of that early life would remain after billions of years? Generalized geologic map showing extent of early Archean (3770 3900 c) Itsaq Gneiss Complex in southern West Greenland (adapted from Nutman et al., 1984, 1996). Oldest sedimentary rocks and associated gneisses are along coast, represented by island of Akilia, and are intruded in places by Proterozoic Qorqut granites. Credit: GSA Today

The debate concerns samples of graphite - a form of carbon used in pencil leads -- from the snowy, barren wastes of western Greenland. In 1979, German geologist Manfred Schidlowski first argued that ratios of carbon isotopes from the rocks were a relic of organic matter. The issue has been contested with renewed vigor since 1996, whenStephen Mojzsis, a geologist at the University of Colorado, published a study of microscopic samples of carbon from the same area. The samples were found in black, fine-grained, highly deformed rocks that started out as ocean-floor sediments. Marine sediments receive a continual rain of matter - both organic and inorganic -- from the water, so they are a good place to look for the remains of past life.

The debate over the sediments has two parts: What is the evidence for life? And how old are the rocks containing it? Rocks of this age are not likely to contain conventional fossils -- to date, the oldest undisputed fossils appear in rocks from 3.2 Ga. Fossils Aerial photograph of BIF locality on Akilia, looking east; sediments are bounded by amphibolites and intruded by gneissic sheets up to 3850 million years old. Credit: GSA Today in older rocks would have long since been destroyed by eons of heat, pressure and deformation. In searching for the oldest life, Mojzsis observes, "you have to look to the chemical record, on the principle that life changes the chemistry of its surroundings in a predictable way." The chemical record of ancient life, found in so-called "chemofossils," is reflected in the ratio of isotopes, with carbon being particularly useful. Carbon exists in nature in more than one form. Normally, carbon-13 (C-13, with atomic weight 13), is much rarer than C-12. However, biological processes concentrate C-12, so when organic debris falls to the ocean floor, the C-12 to C-13 ratio rises still further in the sedimentary rock that forms. That ratio is preserved even in rocks that formed billions of years ago. The percentage differences are small, but distinctive, says Craig Manning, a geologist at the University of California at Los Angeles. "In the modern world, the only way you can generate such a high ratio of carbon-12 relative to carbon-13 is if some sort of fractionation [or preferential use of carbon-12] occurs in living organisms."

Manning, who helped map Akilia Island, Greenland, where the possible 3.85 Ga sediments were found, says ancient life is "the simplest explanation" for their carbon ratios. The isotopic evidence may be ancient and subtle, but it's convincing to John Valley, a professor of geology at the University of WisconsinMadison who has a lot of experience dating ancient rocks. High C-12 to C-13 ratios, he says, "when present in sufficient quantity, are very strong evidence of organic activity, although I don't use the word 'proof.'" But do the rocks that held the carbon really date to 3.85 Ga? Rock of sedimentary origin cannot be dated directly. However, it's possible to deduce a minimum age by dating any igneous "intrusions" that have cut through the sedimentary rock. These intrusions can be dated by the presence within them of crystals called zircons. And because the intrusions were deposited after the sedimentary rock, knowing the age of the zircons gives a minimum age of the sedimentary rock. Geochronologists depend on zircons. Mojzsis, for example, calls them "nature's timekeepers." Zircons crystallize from molten igneous rock as it cools. When they first crystallize, zircons contain uranium, a radioactive element that slowly decays to lead. But until the decay process begins, lead is absent. Because all the lead they now contain originally must have been uranium, the ratio of uranium to lead reflects the time since the zircons formed - since the igneous rock cooled. Thomas Krogh, who helped develop the uranium-lead zircon dating method at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, says that even if the zircons are reheated, as happened at least once to the Greenland samples, they retain a "memory" of the first crystallization. Even more than 3.5 billion years later, uranium-lead dating is accurate to within a few million years, Krogh adds. But because the Greenland rocks were severely deformed during billions of years of geologic turmoil, their age sequence - which rocks were laid down first, which later? - is confusing. Obviously, accurate zircon dating can help determine the age of the sedimentary rocks only if the age relationship of the various rocks is known accurately.
Microscopic view of a zircon crystal determined to be 4.4 billion years old making it the world's oldest known terrestrial material. Zircon is a mineral commonly used to determine the geological age of rocks. Chemical analysis of this grain suggests that the Earth was cool enough to have water, a hydrospehere and, possibly, life much earlier than previously thought. Credit: John W. Valley

A rock sample from Akilia Island off the coast of Greenland. Credit: CNN

During summer, 2000, Manning, Mojzsis and Mark Harrison of UCLA performed a detailed survey of Akilia Island. "All the previous claims

were based on an old kind of mapping," Manning says. "You [can't] just stand there with notebook and sketch what you see. Given the magnitude of the claims, it was extremely important to lay out a grid and map at more detailed scale." After two weeks of mapping, he says, "We did discover a good crosscutting relationship" among the rocks. The 3.85 Ga figure, he adds, "is indisputable, as far as we're concerned." This new research has been submitted for publication. While Manning, Mojzsis and Krogh all think the 3.85 Ga age is correct, Stephen Moorbath, a geologist at Oxford University contends that the rocks were most likely deposited about 3.65 to 3.70 Ga. This more recent dating would explain the absence of the element iridium - rare on Earth but common in asteroids or any other signs of asteroid impacts, such as surface turbulence. Due to the paucity of evidence, the detailed interpretation of life from ancient samples may always remain controversial, yet the very existence of samples moves the discussion of ancient life from the realm of speculation and theory into the realm of experimentation. In other words, says Mojzsis, it enters the realm of science. "The geological record of Earth is the baseline from which we can investigate evidence of past environments on any other planet. On Earth, we call a spacecraft a Toyota Land Cruiser, and a sample return mission can return hundreds of kilograms to the world's best labs." Ancient zircons, he adds, "are intrinsically exciting because they help us understand the early Earth. These studies provide an important feature for any scientific discussion: data."

http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/

Ever Ask Yourself, How Did Life Begin?

Science has long sought answers to several important questions: What is life? Where did it come from? How did it begin? You won't the answers by peering into a microscope, telescope or test tube. Millions of species share this planet. But only man has tried to understand the world and universe around him. Only man continues to search for the origin and meaning of life. Clearly what sets us apart from all other living creatures on earth are the abilities and power of the human mind. It drives us to want to understand. Some people's desire to understand life is made evident in religion by cathedrals, temples and churches. Others look to science in their search for meaning and gaze through microscopes, build particle accelerators and send space probes to neighboring planets in search of life and its origins.

When all is said and done, history has shown that, whether in religion or science, man's foundational curiosity has to do with the basics of life. What is life? How did life begin? How did it get here? What is the meaning of life? Science and creation When we consider the quest for the understanding of the universe and life within it, one of the great minds of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, comes to the fore. Although he studied physics rather than biology, Einstein was intrigued by the question of human origins and the existence of the universe. He recognized the evidence for an intelligence behind the functioning of the cosmos and the existence of life. After years of study into the structure and origin of the universe, he acknowledged that "the harmony of natural law" he saw in the laws of physics "reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection" (The Quotable Einstein, Alice Calaprice, editor, 1996, p. 151). Some would say Albert Einstein, in spite of such a profound admission, was not thinking of a biblical or personal God when he spoke of this superior intelligence. But Einstein never had the opportunity to consider many of the aspects of the growing body of evidence for cosmic fine-tuning and design that cosmologists have discovered in recent decades. Discoveries about the beginnings of the universe point to a beginning, a "first cause," that many cosmologists claim is the most likely explanation for the origin of all things. The "intelligent design" movement According to the Darwinist model of evolution, undirected natural causes are responsible for the origin and development of life. Because Darwinist evolution is based solely on random genetic mutation, it precludes the possibility of a supernatural Creator or any guiding intelligence playing a role in life's development. In spite of the incredible level of acceptance of Darwinism and evolution over the decades, however, there have always been some dissenters who rejected Charles Darwin's claim that undirected natural causes could not only produce life but be responsible for the countless species and forms of life we see today. Until the mid-1980s these other voices were largely isolated and sporadic. More recently these growing voicescategorized as the "intelligent design" movementhave become more focused in their pointed criticisms of Darwinist evolution. Many attempt to overturn the cultural dominance of Darwinism in both social and academic circles. Without employing the Bible as a scientific text, many intelligentdesign scientists and scholars, including authors such as Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Charles Thaxton, Michael Denton and Stephen Meyer, have critiqued Darwinism on scientific and philosophical grounds. What, then, is intelligent design? It is a theory of our origins that begins with the observation that intelligent causes can accomplish things that undirected natural causes simply cannot. This is true of the design or development of both inanimate and living things. Consider the word game of Scrabble as an example. Let's grant that the board and letter pieces exist. Try tossing them into the air and see how they land. You certainly wouldn't expect all the letters to land in

place on the board, arranged in correctly spelled words. Yet that, in essence, is what evolutionary theory asks us to believe. To achieve an arrangement of a series of meaningful words requires the assumption of an intelligent cause-in this example the players of the game. An outside cause must sort and place the pieces in a meaningful order. This conceptthat a fundamental distinction exists between undirected natural causes on the one hand and directed or intelligent causes on the otherhas served as the premise of proponents of the design concept over the centuries. This fundamental concept has been the basic thesis of the more-recent intelligent-design movement that is being accepted by a small but growing number of scientists, astronomers and cosmologists. The quest to understand life's origins Man has long recognized the significant difference between living and nonliving matter. Since the early days of man's realization of the rarity of life, there has never been a shortage of theories to explain the presence of life on earth. Yet, in spite of centuries of research and hundreds of theories, the origin of life remains one of the greatest challenges to science. As Nobel laureate Max Delbruck put it: "... There has been an immense conceptual gap between all present-day life and no life." The mechanics of the transition from no life to life is "perhaps the fundamental question of biology" (Mind from Matter?, 1986, p. 31). Nevertheless, the immense conceptual gap between life and nonlife is seldom recognized and rarely admitted by many evolutionary theorists. Even Darwin sidestepped the issue, adopting the attitude that "it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, Macropaedia Vol. 10, p. 900, "Life"). Regardless of evolutionists' enthusiasm for their theory, they must propose a credible explanation for the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter. After all, for the proposed process of evolution to begin, some starting material is necessarysome substance that the random processes of evolution could use to bring about life. Scientists' attempt to explain life This need led to the concept of "chemical evolution" for the scientific explanation of the origin of life. When the present-day theories of chemical evolution (the natural processes on a prebiotic earth that supposedly gave rise to the first living matter) were formulated by Alexander Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane in the 1920s, little was known about the biochemical details and workings of living matter. Thus early theorists took great latitude to propose mechanistic processes by which organisms could come into existence. Modern theories of chemical evolution in textbooks suggest that our planet was covered with a warm, slightly alkaline ocean. The theories claim that ultraviolet light from the sun, geothermal energy from volcanoes, shock waves from thunder and cosmic radiation acted on gases of the primitive atmosphere to cause the formation of amino acids, sugars, proteins, nucleic acids and cell membranes. In time these compounds somehow came together into the first protocell, then became more complex until the first true living cell came into existence. In 1953 the work of Stanley Miller and Nobel prize-winner Harold Urey was hailed as providing the missing link in understanding how the chemical origin of life could have happened. They synthesized amino acids and proteins in what they claimed to be a simulated primitive-earth environment.

Miller's work served as the sole pillar on which chemical evolutionists built their theories. Today, however, many scientists have concluded that the early atmosphere was vastly different from that of Miller's experiments and that he was operating under fundamentally wrong assumptions. Further, in almost five decades little progress has been made to indicate that such simulated primordial oceans or organic-soup experiments yield anything more than a few inanimate proteins or amino acids without any other characteristics of life. Among other things they are missing the allimportantinformational macromolecules that exist in all forms of life, the molecules that carry the vital information, or software, that defines life, its very nature and its functions. Some evolutionists have recognized the difficulties of explaining the spontaneous beginning of all of the necessary chemical components to life. They observe the high degree of complexity of present lifeforms and admit the seemingly impossible task of offering a plausible explanation. However, since life is present on Earth, and science demands some sort of mechanistic explanation for its existence, they continue to search for theories that will satisfy the scientific method. The fifth miracle In 1999 theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Australia's University of Adelaide wrote The Fifth Miracle to address the definition and origins of life. In his book Professor Davies cited new research that he claimed hints that the beginnings of life may have lain deep within the earth's hot crust rather than the "warm pond" suggested by Darwin. The "fifth miracle" of Davies' title refers to Genesis 1:11: "Let the land produce vegetation" (New International Version), implying the first four biblical miracles are the creation of the universe, light, the firmament and dry land. Even though Davies disavows the notion that life is the result of a miracle from a Creator God, he admits that the actual beginning of life is the most unsolvable mystery of science. Professor Davies recounts how the work of Louis Pasteur in the 1860s led to the scientific realization that only living organisms could beget other living organisms. Pasteur's research and findings essentially debunked the concept of spontaneous generation, that life could arise spontaneously from nonliving matter. Davies states: "Important though this demonstration was, Pasteur's conclusion came into direct conflict with Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin's celebrated tome On the Origin of Species, which had been published just three years before Pasteur's experiments, sought to discredit the need for God to create the species by showing how one species can transmute into another. But Darwin's account left open the problem of how the first living thing came to exist" (1999, p. 83, emphasis in original). So we are left with the fact that, unless life had always existed, at least one species the firstcould not have come into existence by transmutation from another species, but only by spontaneous generation from nonliving matter, a concept that Pasteur's work disproved. Darwin himself wrote a few years later: "I have met with no evidence that seems in the least trustworthy, in favor of so-called Spontaneous Generation" (ibid.). Yet, as Davies continues: "... In the absence of a miracle, life could have originated only by some sort of spontaneous generation. Darwin's theory of evolution and Pasteur's theory that only life begets life cannot both have been completely right" (ibid.). Man cannot explain it

Davies' book, although citing much of the current research in early-life origins (microbes around volcanic vents in the ocean's floor) and striving to offer explanations of how life came to be, is actually a work filled with admissions that science simply does not have the answer as to how life began. "Science rejects true miracles," he writes. "Although biogenesis strikes many as virtually miraculous, the starting point of any scientific investigation must be the assumption that life emerged naturally, via a sequence of normal physical processes. It is very unlikely that we will ever find out exactly what happened ..." (pp. 81-82). One of the greatest challenges to scientists, and the focus of much of modern research into life's origins, is the key issue of information. For life to exist, information-software, as it weremust have existed in those initial proteins and amino acids. That is what scientists simply cannot explain and what random selection cannot reproduce. Professor Davies admits: "In a living organism we see the power of software, or information processing, refined to an incredible degree ... The problem of the origin of life reduces to one of understanding how encoded software emerged spontaneously from hardware. How did it happen? How did nature 'go digital'? ... It is like trying to explain how a kite can evolve into a radio-controlled aircraft. Can the laws of nature as we presently comprehend them account for such a transition? I do not believe they can" (p. 115, emphasis added). Clearly, the argument that Davies and other representative viewers of modern science seem to be making is that we need to discover and understand some fundamentally new variable that is beyond both chance and law. In spite of the lack of answers for the origin of life that are forthcoming from the known laws of physics, mathematics and biochemistry, humanity seems bent on considering only answers from modern scienceanswers that do not allow for a Creator. The concept of an intelligent force operating in the history of life is seen by scientific materialists as some sort of magic on a cosmic scale. The impact of modern science Modern science, with all its achievements, continues to evolve its very research methods and definitions. A problem is that "science" has two distinct definitions in our culture. On the one hand, science refers to a method of investigation involving exacting measurements, repeatable experiments and an open-minded attitude that insists that all claims be carefully tested. But science has also become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This definition of science insists that nature (the natural, physical cosmos) is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. The conclusion follows that nature had to do its own creating, that the means of creation must not have included any role for a Creator. Students are not supposed to approach this philosophy with open-minded skepticismas they are told to do in any other scientific endeavorbut, ironically enough, to take it on faith (although they would never use that religioussounding term). The reason that neo-Darwinism and natural selection in evolution are so blindly accepted in the academic world is that they are the main scientific props for scientific naturalism. Students first are taught that evolution is fact, then they gradually learn more about what that fact means.

The same principle is true in the search for the origin of life. When one assumes that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection and random variation, God is excluded from the picture. Humans (along with all life) thus are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. The only alternative Many people claim to see a huge difference between the revelations of the Bible and the factual findings of science. That view has caused many simply to disregard the Bible when they consider the quest to understand the origins of life and its meaning. Some 2,000 years ago the apostle Paul addressed the world's alleged wisdom and knowledge about such fundamental questions. He stated the obvious: that God has shown proof of Himself to man: "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them" (Romans 1:19, New Revised Standard Version). Here Paul acknowledges a truth that mankind has taken thousands of years to discover in secular, scientific researchthat realities about God and His part in the creation of life and the universe should be and are indeed evident to those willing to see. He tells us that, for all of man's efforts to understand how life could have originated, proof of a Creator (an intelligent designer, as many scientists are discovering) has been in front of us all along: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (verse 20). Yet, as was true in first-century Rome, so it is true today: Mankind simply refuses to acknowledge the need for the Creator. Of the educated elite of his time Paul noted that, "even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind ..." (verse 28). Later Paul prophesied that modern man would depart from acknowledging and accepting the role of the Creator God: "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves,... having a form of godliness but denying its power" (2 Timothy 3:1, 5). While the most fundamental questions of sciencewhat is life and where did it come fromcontinue to perplex the best minds of secular science, God reveals that He not only has the answers to the initial question of life's origin but the solution to the profound question of life's purpose. Whether we understand the purpose for human life or not, the Bible promises that "the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken" (Isaiah 40:5, NIV). In due time this will come to pass. The Bible is silent on the scientific, chemical and biological origins of life. Why? Because it reveals that all life was created by God. This answer to the ultimate question of modern science is rejected by most, but the time will come when all will understand! http://www.thewordout.net/pages/page.asp?page_id=90459