dtgreene: Actually, Lord Kelvin calculated that the age of the earth to be about 100 million years, and later reduced his estimate to 20 milion. This time was too short to explain geology and evolution, but too long for overly religions folks. However, Kelvin was well respected in the scientific community, so his age estimate became generally accepted. In fact, Darwin removed his age estimate (300 million years for some rock to erode) from later editions of his Origin of Species.
Note that this all happened before radioactivity had been discovered, so Kelvin's estimate did not take that into account.
mystikmind2000: I could believe 100 million in terms of the existence of life. is that what he meant?
But at what point do you start to calculate the age of the Earth? From the moment the first two atoms joined together or when its half the size it is now? presumably the Earth is still growing even today if only by very tiny amount?
Edit - Darwins 300 million based on erosion. Crap. You cannot use erosion to estimate the age of anything because of climate change. Plus you cannot rule out any periods of time of foliage coverage in the past which halts erosion.
Actually, Lord Kelvin's calculation was based only on the dissipation of heat, the idea being that, without an internal source of energy, the earth would have to cool over time. By running time backwards, an age can be calculated. (Note that, as I said, Kelvin's calculation was wrong because it didn't take into account radiation, which was not known about at the time.)
Anyway, I found the text for Darwin's Origin of Species 1st Edition online at
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1228/1228-h/1228-h.htm Here is the relevant section:
I am tempted to give one other case, the well-known one of the denudation of the Weald. Though it must be admitted that the denudation of the Weald has been a mere trifle, in comparison with that which has removed masses of our palaeozoic strata, in parts ten thousand feet in thickness, as shown in Professor Ramsay's masterly memoir on this subject. Yet it is an admirable lesson to stand on the North Downs and to look at the distant South Downs; for, remembering that at no great distance to the west the northern and southern escarpments meet and close, one can safely picture to oneself the great dome of rocks which must have covered up the Weald within so limited a period as since the latter part of the Chalk formation. The distance from the northern to the southern Downs is about 22 miles, and the thickness of the several formations is on an average about 1100 feet, as I am informed by Professor Ramsay. But if, as some geologists suppose, a range of older rocks underlies the Weald, on the flanks of which the overlying sedimentary deposits might have accumulated in thinner masses than elsewhere, the above estimate would be erroneous; but this source of doubt probably would not greatly affect the estimate as applied to the western extremity of the district. If, then, we knew the rate at which the sea commonly wears away a line of cliff of any given height, we could measure the time requisite to have denuded the Weald. This, of course, cannot be done; but we may, in order to form some crude notion on the subject, assume that the sea would eat into cliffs 500 feet in height at the rate of one inch in a century. This will at first appear much too small an allowance; but it is the same as if we were to assume a cliff one yard in height to be eaten back along a whole line of coast at the rate of one yard in nearly every twenty-two years. I doubt whether any rock, even as soft as chalk, would yield at this rate excepting on the most exposed coasts; though no doubt the degradation of a lofty cliff would be more rapid from the breakage of the fallen fragments. On the other hand, I do not believe that any line of coast, ten or twenty miles in length, ever suffers degradation at the same time along its whole indented length; and we must remember that almost all strata contain harder layers or nodules, which from long resisting attrition form a breakwater at the base. Hence, under ordinary circumstances, I conclude that for a cliff 500 feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole length would be an ample allowance. At this rate, on the above data, the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years; or say three hundred million years.
Edit: Could somebody please kindly tell why this post, which I put a lot of effort into writing, has been "low rated"?