English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-11-22 20:20:56 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Astronomy & Space

14 answers

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from when the Earth was forming caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have probably destroyed all of the earliest surface.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

2007-11-22 20:54:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

God did no longer create the Earth and Adam concurrently. in case you insist to calculate the age of Earth from the day Adam became into born, Earth could be as youthful as 6000 plus years previous. modern-day geologists, even however, show that earth is as previous as 4.6 billions years previous. This parent would desire to alter as extra stepped forward scientific procedures are being created to study Earth age.

2016-10-17 21:24:08 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

There are lots of methods which can be used to estimate age - but they all rely on assumptions.

The methods that are used to give an age of billions are based on radiometric dating methods. These rely 3 assumptions: the original amount of the parent and daughter isotopes, the decay rate hasremained constant; no parent or daughter isotope has leached in or out.

In fact radiometric dating methods are demonstrably flawed - giving dates of millions of years for volcanic rock from Mt St Helens which is just decades old!
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059/

In fact most dating methods indicate the earth is young:
Recession of the moon
Decay of earth's magnetic field
Salinity of the sea
Helium in the wrong places
Existence of short lived comets
Distant galaxies not 'wound up' enough.
Etc, etc.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/

2007-11-23 05:31:06 · answer #3 · answered by a Real Truthseeker 7 · 1 0

drdino.com

It's amazing stuff, really!

I see that woman mentioned something about Catholics.

Well, to set the record straight, for anyone who may read this...

Catholics and Christianity are NOT the same.

Roman Catholics used to kill Christians. That's fact. Google it.

BUT, the catholics are correct when they say add up the age of people in the Bible.

Also, if you take evolution, and the fact that we've been around for "MILLIONS OF YEARS" into account....there would be over 150,000 people per square inch.

If you believe there is a God, and the Bible is true...from the Bible's timeline, we have as many people as we should.

Overpopulation? I don't think so. Right now, if you took every human on the planet of the earth, and put them all together, we'd all fit in an area a little bigger than the size of Jacksonville, Florida.

That's a fact. If evolution were true, and scientists were correct, and if we've REALLY been around for millions of years, there would'nt be enough room on this planet for any of us, going by our rate of reproduction.

But, anyway, check the site out if you want...I'm not here to argue...I know what I believe in, and I'm too smart to think my Great Grandpa was a monkey, and we all came from dirt.

2007-11-22 20:36:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

Nice question. This is a HOT topic of debate between creationists and evolutionists. In fact, the debate doesn't stop at earth- it relates to the age of the entire universe! Carbon dating, a technique which gauges the amount of carbon-14 that organic material contains, is only intended to be used for smaller amount of time. (a few tens of thousands of years) But it is often used by evolutionists for longer periods of time than this, greatly skewing its reliability. Creationists also use some flawed tests, along with some reliable tests. To be short and general, the earth is dated by calculating how much a specific material has deteriorated and the rate at which it deteriorates. There are many different ways of doing this, and their reliability is debatable. I could go on for days about this topic, but if you are really interested, go to the library and do some reading. It's a fascinating area of study!

2007-11-22 20:43:16 · answer #5 · answered by Chris T 2 · 1 3

Chris T is a good example of why people with limited scientific knowledge should not answer scientific questions. You're completely and utterly wrong about carbon-14 being used to date anything much older than archaeological relics. If you knew something about half-lives of isotopes this would have been clear to you and you wouldn't have written something so ignorant.

Here, read this:

2007-11-23 01:34:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

It's 1.4 billion years old and we know the age of the planet by finding dino fossils and proved the earth has been around one million years.

2007-11-22 20:50:28 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 1 3

The half life of radioactive elements and the ratios left in ore bodies.

2007-11-23 00:21:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

The method use is the half life of uranium, we recored its level of activity and then see how much its decreased by and plug it into a lovely equation and you got your time.

2007-11-22 20:27:49 · answer #9 · answered by Blondie the second 3 · 2 0

subtract the year of it's birth on birth certificate from 2007

2007-11-22 20:38:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers