40 billion years old
2006-09-06 20:23:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ad Just 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
The earth is 4.6 billion years old.
This is measured quite accurately and has nothing to do with fossils.
The age of the Earth is measured by studies of radioactive elements. Radioactive elements are unstable and "parent" atoms decay into other "daughter" elements at a steady rate. For example, through a series of steps, atoms of uranium decay into atoms of lead. By measuring the abundance of "parent" and "daughter" atoms in rock samples and knowing the decay rate, geologists can calculate the age of the rock. Using several different sets of parent and daughter elements, geologists have measured the age of a variety of rocks, including terrestrial and lunar rocks as well as meteorites, which originate primarily from asteroids. The results consistently indicate an age of about 4.6 billion years for the Earth.
Ss earlier mentioned the universe is about 14 billion years old so any guesses above this are just that - guesses and do not really help any.
2006-09-07 06:53:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by jen_82_m 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The oldest rocks on Earth are about 4 billion years old. This is well established from radioisotope data. So we can pretty much say the Earth is about that old, though we don't know exactly how long the Earth was a molten ball of rock.
And there's nothing that requires a God.
2006-09-07 03:26:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by KimballKinnison 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
The universe itself is only 13.7 billion years old so anyone who bid higher than that is just guessing wildly. Which really doesn't help.
The oldest rocks on earth may be about 4 million years old but the figure is higher because of the age of meteorites found on Earth which is 4.6 billion years.
2006-09-07 06:20:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by Hitchmoughs_Guide _2 _The_Galaxy 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
between 6,000 and 40 billion years old. I believe in God, and I have no clue how old the Earth is. But check this out...
If God made Adam as a full grown man in one day, wouldn't it make sense that all the creatures he made were already years old on the day they were made. And couldn't the same thing apply to the Earth, that on the day it was made, it was already old, because that's how mature it needed to be to sustain life?
The stars in the sky are too far away to say that they were born 6000 years ago... their light wouldn't have even made it to Earth yet, but with God all things are possible.
Wow, that's deep man.
2006-09-07 03:30:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by marklin1972 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Scientists say it's 4.5 to 4.7 billion years old, and they have much evidence to support it. I'll go along with them. Bishop Ussher studied the Bible and determined that creation was in 4004 BC. This is childish. Genesis has two different creation myths and many errors about such matters. There is no evidence at all to support Genesis and much to disprove it.
2006-09-07 12:25:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by miyuki & kyojin 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
WHY ARE YOU IDIOTS SAYING CRAP!!
SCIENTISTS HAVE NOT BEEN CHANGING THE AGE OF THE EARTH!!!
Its been about 4.6 billion years for as long as I've been reading science books... jeez. This figure has been deduced by looking at the oldest minerals on earth... please read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Earth
The dates for creation was put forth by James Ussher in 1654 and he puts the date at October 23, 4004 BCE. That would put the age of the earth at about 6002 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_Creation
The true answer... I'd bet my money on 4.6 billion.
2006-09-07 03:33:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by John H 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
According to scientists, it's 4.5 billion years old, according to the Bible it's only about 10,000 years old. I think it's somewhere in the middle.
2006-09-07 03:25:06
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
As old as the largest number in the number system...
I guess you get my point...
Reason: Scientists keep on increasing age of earth by finding different fossils in different regions, i stlll feel, lot of earth is still unexplored...
2006-09-07 03:26:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Statistic say that nothing can be proved, but I know this much, wikipedia is not a scholarly source for information.
So if you've looked to that as a source, you've proved nothing.
2006-09-07 04:27:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by nonono 3
·
0⤊
1⤋