Carbon dating is absolutely useless in determining how old the earth is as it is only useful for dating things that are less than 60,000 years old. Since scientists are saying that the earth is more like 4.57 Billion years old, they are obviously using some other method.
So, how did they come up with this number. Through radiometric dating of minerals found on the earth and those found in other parts of the solar system (meteorites, moon rocks, etc)... We can also compare the attributes of our own star to those of the trillions of other stars in the sky in order to get a rough idea of how old our solar system is.
Since minerals on earth are constantly being changed, they are a poor way to determine the age of the planet. As far as I know the oldest known rocks on earth are only a little more than 3 billion years old. But, since meteorites have been found to be as old as 4.57 BYO, we can safely assume that the earth was being formed at about the exact same time.
Since it is not known how long it took for the planet to form (estimates vary from a few million years to a hundred million+), it is impossible to know the exact age of the earth... but we have a very good idea that the planet started to form about 4.6 BYA and we have absolute proof that the moon is at least 4.4 BYO (radiometric dating of moon rocks)-- and if you accept the "giant impact hypothesis" of the moon formation, then you must assume that the earth is older than 4.4 BY.
The body of evidence pointing to this being the correct age of the planet is huge - and there is really no evidence refuting it.
Here's a link to Wikipedia's page on this topic... it goes into much greater detail about the scientific aspects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
edit: (I see Ezekiel deleted his answer so I deleted my critisism, but now I have another answer to complain about)
To those that question the effectiveness of radiometric dating -- have you ever heard of the "atomic clock" in CO? You know, the most accurate clock on the planet? Guess what it's based on... the rate of decay of a radioactive substance... Honestly, radiometric dating is without a doubt EXTREMELY accurate, and to say it is "fuzzy" shows a weak undestanding of the concept. I appologize for getting off track, but I don't want somebody to stumble on these kinds of answers and think that they are accurate. They are not. The exact age of the planet isn't known, but the estimate of 4.57 BY is very well supported.
2007-06-14 00:55:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by brooks b 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
Around 4.6 billion years old. As to the second part of your question, what do you mean my "scientific proof"? All science is based on theories, which were based on previous theories, which were based on previous theories. As one philosopher from India stated, "I know where you are going, and it's turtles all the way down". Theories have to be able to explain facts, and to predict future events. When you are talking of billions of years and the average human life is less than 100 years, prediction becomes meaningless. If, however, you wish to debunk the Science of Physics and its radiometric dating, then I suggest you go back to the Stone Age and forget all of science, because all "scientific proof" is based on theory.
2007-06-14 11:37:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by Amphibolite 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
I don't see Ezekiel's answer; he must have wussed out.
There's empirical proof, and there's inferred proof.
Seems to me, if you start a timer and after an interval read the change, that's proof of that interval. Age-determination is inferred using techniques that assume a totally predictable decay rate for certain radioactive materials. And that assumption is itself inferred from recent observations and from calculations based on less-recent observations, in accord with current best-accepted theory.
This much inference gives a pretty fuzzy standard of "proof," IMO.
2007-06-15 07:47:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by mike 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Relative to what?
Around 4 billion in its current form...
And tonnes of much older material falling to earth over that time...
2007-06-14 04:04:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by ★Greed★ 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
young for ever but it will be vanished and distroyed one day
in judgement day
2007-06-14 04:24:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by chums12000 2
·
0⤊
1⤋