Re: age of the Earth

On 4/21/25 4:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
 

On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 20:10:53 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>

fBertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>

On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:53:58 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>

At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
number)
>
He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
>
So he, 'made up a number'!
>
Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.

>
You are quote-mining.
>
In reality Darwin wrote:      (second edition)
===
Hence,

>
Huh?
>
under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500

feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
length would be a sufficient allowance.

>
500*12*100 is 600000 years.
>
>
>
At this rate, on the above data,

the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;

>
Whatever the Weald is, *hence* its height gotta be

>
There you have it, talking again without understanding
of what it is all about.
You should have looked up 'The Weald' before shooting your mouth off.
>

306662400/100 inches or 3066624 inches or 3066624/12 feet or 255552 feet
or about 8 times the height of Mount Everest was the height of the
Weald, whatever that may have been.

>
FYI, 'The Weald' is the region between the 'North Downs'
and the 'South Downs'. (so near where Darwin lived)
The height of the original mountain that was eroded away
can be estimated from the distance betwen the North and South Downs,
which is 22 miles. (the Downs are the remains of the original slopes)
>
And yes, doing the sum with 22 miles to erode gives you Darwin's
estimate of about 300 000 000 years.

>
>
Erosion or height reduction is in the vertical plane. Not horizontal.
>
Erosion of 255552 feet in the vertical plane gives us in miles
255552/(3*1760) or 255552/5280 or a bit over 48 miles.
>
Not 22 miles which is beyond the limit of jet engines.
>
So according to Darwin and his followers there was a mountain in the
Weald whose height was in near space.
>
Point is, what could erode that much height with no wind or water for
that purpose.
>
Not that certain physicists need be bothered by such pesky issues.

 You are both blundering idiots, with feet in mouth,
by pontificating on subjects you don't know the first things of.
Why for heavens sake?
Is it that important to you to belittle a genius?
 For the possibly misled kiddies who might stray into here here:
Mountain building, and erosion, are continuing processes.
Mountain ranges are more or less in quasi-static equilibrium,
with the continuing uplift and the erosial breakdown
balancing, more or less.
A mountain range that is no longer uplifted disappears.
(in some tens of millions of years)
 So 'The Weald' never was a 22 mile high mountain.
That 22 miles is a reasonable estimate for the amount of material
that was removed from it by erosion, over geologic time.
(from identifying continuing layers on both sides)
 So Darwin was completely right here:
erosion is of order of a few centimeters/century,
total hight of material removed by erosion
is of order tens of kilometers,
So typical ages of old mountain ranges
can be estimated to be in the hundreds of million of years old.
 Jan
     

I think Darwin meant one inch of horizontal _recession_ rather than vertically downward erosion, for both the cliff and the Weald. And the funny thing about this whole thread is that probably even him, but certainly nor Hendry (author of that funky book you pointed at), and certainly nor you clarified it. So I'm left with only guesses on how careless some cro-magnons are, possibly including Darwin.
I have not personally read Darwin's account of the calculation, so cannot be sure he was careless in his description. But .. you guys before trying to explain something should take care you do it right. This is not a "linux" or "Limbaugh" forum.
Why? Because throughout decades you've reduced yourselves to subjects of Physfit's dick rather than Physfit himself. You lose something to my dick every time you talk careless nonsense.
And nobody "belittles" Darwin, Ms. careless woman. We don't belittle cro-magnons. Do I belittle cats? Of course not.
We _wonder_!
We wonder how rigidly cro-magnons' limits are, as close as they are to Modern Human. It is sometimes funny, sometimes make us feel sorry for them, and sometimes indicates how they will lose it all in the long term and vanish.
Remember that Modern Human never belittled Neanderthals. They fucked them and lived with them and made children with them. You cro-magnons are the proof of that.
I marreid a 100% cro-magnon woman!.. I wouldn't marry someone whom I could "belittle".