Introduction
The age of the earth has been an issue of controversy from the creation point of view to evolution. It is estimated that the earth is about 4.54 billion years old. This age is estimated from the radiometric age accounted from the meteorite material, this is said to be constant with the earliest ever recorded samples of terrestrial and lunar ages (Brown, 25). According to document research it proved that the sun is 30 M years older than the earth.
This age is accumulated through scientific evolution that coins the radiometric age dating; the age is achieved through calculation of lead in the materials that are rich in uranium. Some minerals/rocks are much older than solar system for example Zircon crystal was predictable to be 4.4 B years old. From the research done it is evident that the crystal was much older than even the solar system (Wayne, p. 99).
However even with inclusion of rich calcium and aluminum and Zircon crystal analysis for the earth age estimation there is still no clear indication of the exact accretion time and age of the earth, from different model there are differing predictions and assumption of the real age of the earth (Dalrymple, p. 123). This is usually because even the determination of the age of the oldest rock in the world is based on assumptions and not true facts, these facts deters the determination of the original age of the earth accountability.
Two Worldviews of the Age of Earth
All over the world there are only two logical explanation of the age of the earth, these explanation relies on how everything in the earth become into being this are creation and evolution. There are different theories which depict on how the universe become to be what it is today which creation concept argues that there must have been a superior being which created the universe. However, evolution is the atheistic concept that explains the origins rather that creation (Baker, p. 67).
It is evident that neither the concepts of creation or evolution have ever been proven with credible evidence that may support the theory (Wayne, 99). They articulate that both of the theories should be treated as religious beliefs because they all harbor faith as evidence. The fundamental point here is accumulated to the fact that the theories are separate and districts that are attainable from testable and repeatable data that is natural but hold little dimension of realistic and materialist truth.
However there are few limitation for each theory as the philosophers articulate that for evolution to be legible there has to be excessive amount of time, however no matter how extensive the time is allocated then we come back to the creation concept, however evolution becomes favorable in the case that the earth was extremely old and then again arises the main question that every archeologist tries to account, which is the age of the earth?
Indoctrination and Education on age of earth
Age of earth is an issue which have been discussed by academicians and religion which has brought division on the theories which argue on how the universe was made. Hence, there is indoctrination theory of creation and scientific theory which are being taught in school. The administration feels obligated to use the old earth as a tool of removing God from the syllabus of the public edification. However, this has also been viewed as a diversion as the world view of atheist is also articulated to be religious than the creationist view point (Brown, p. 133).
The result that arises from these facts declares that the youth in the school are mostly indoctrinated and not educated (Dalrymple, p. 271). This inject that fact that after schooling the student are left mixed about which theory to follow, the most compelling fact is that the student have to undergo subjects that contradict this theories. The student are left with doubt as the creationist subjects describe the creation theory and the six day theory, while the social science tutor also addresses the evolution theory with many other concept that are associated with this theory.
Facts from fiction
To clearly compute for the earth age is some thing that is usually considered a myth, this is relied by the fact that there are no logical measuring devices that can account for the exact date that the rocks that researchers tend to pretend to estimate the ages and origin. The material that are computed are taken from the earth surface, however, the same analyst say that the energy formed by earth accumulation earlier made the surface of the earth to become molten, this process is analyzed that the aftermath is the destruction of the earliest surface, now the question that rises here is that how come that the same surface is been analyzed for the age of the earth while in the doctrines of history of the earth surface articulate that it was wiped out (Brown, p. 144). Now where are the samples that are been computed for the ages arising from.
The assumption that have been accounted for and the subject of the real age of earth is very trick affair, then again the analyst after noticing that the contradiction of the samples that are found on the surface of the earth are false and confusing, coined the use of minerals from the orbit. This is the trickiest part and the researchers have been toying with the idea of numerous sample rocks articulated that they are from the orbit. The dating again takes the course of first dating the age of the solar system, this is attained from data points that are computed from the terrestrial sediments, and this is achieved through computing for the ages of the samples terrestrial sediments that are said to have formed along with the planets and are at the moment geologically inactive (Baker, p. 109).
Conclusion
Most of the dating mechanisms and computations that whichever theory attempts to use to account for the age of the earth, the more one gets into the literature that offers this teaching the more complex and tricky the subjects develop. The literature that accounts for the age of earth are of two natures and each tries to outdo the other, the creation theory articulates that there is a higher Being than the universe that created the universe while evolution contradicts and demands that the age of the earth can only be accounted for through computation of terrestrial sediments (Wayne, 287). The age that this entire two function results to be amusing and none of them have facts to support the answers. The only now choice is that because both of them are based on faith is that for a person with interest on the real age is just take side with one of the theory and believe.
Works Cited
- Baker, Sylvia. Evolution: Bone of Contention. New Jersey: Evangelical. 1976. Print.
- Brown, Robert. An Age-Old Question: Review of the Age of the Earth. Denver: MacMurray. 1999. Print.
- Dalrymple, Brent. The Age of the Earth. California: Stanford University. 1991. Print.
- Wayne, Jackson. Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth. California: Courier. 1989. Print.