Can the earth really be millions (billions) of years old? I've watched Dr. Kent Hovind's seminars on creation science (www.drdino.com) and have to agree that some of the "evidence" supporting evolution, is quite ridiculous.
How old is the earth? On which facts would you base your assumptions on?
I think that earth is as old as the oldest planet. It means that about 4.5billion years old. In my opion the whole unverse was established in a few minutes and everthing was the same as before.
| osbits wrote: |
| and everthing was the same as before. |
Before what?The thing that amazes me about the planet is the depth. When you look at the Grand Canyon for example, how long did it take for water to carve out those ravines? When we find dinosaur remains they are only a couple of metres at the most from the surface. With this in mind how far back do we see when we look at these natural structures. I know volcanism and earthquakes move the surface up and down but even so it's quite awe inspiring.
| Wynand wrote: |
Can the earth really be millions (billions) of years old? I've watched Dr. Kent Hovind's seminars on creation science (www.drdino.com) and have to agree that some of the "evidence" supporting evolution, is quite ridiculous.
How old is the earth? On which facts would you base your assumptions on? |
Perhaps you could state which evidence you find ridiculous. Personally I find the creationist argument to be entirely ridiculous and based on misunderstood or misconcieved science.
The age of the earth....OK....
1) Terrstrial Geology. Observation of rock strata and geological phenomena lead to the conclusion that the earth is old. Just HOW old is not possible to determin using entirely earth-based geology, because weathering means that primordial rock is not easy to find. The oldest samples we have currently have been dated using a variety of different radiometric techniques and the ages vary between 3.4 and 3.7 billion years.
2) Extra-terrestrial geology. Meteors are thought to be left over remnants from the creation of the solar system. There are many good reasons why this should be so. Meteor dating gives a fairly consistent picture of somewhere between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years as a reference.
3) Cosmology. 4.5 billion years is completely consistent with the wider cosmological models of galaxy formation which posit that the milky way is around 11 billion years old and the universe itself around 14 billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
http://gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/deeptime.html
Last edited by Bikerman on Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:32 pm; edited 1 time in totalI don't know theres carbon dating and everytihing but theres no way of verifying whether all of it is true and factual. I wonder how much longer our earth has to live, i know its not during our lifetime but i wonder what it would be like
| wingedhope wrote: |
| I don't know theres carbon dating and everytihing but theres no way of verifying whether all of it is true and factual. I wonder how much longer our earth has to live, i know its not during our lifetime but i wonder what it would be like |
Carbon dating is not relavent to this discussion and is not used in this context.
C. | Teezgaff wrote: |
| The thing that amazes me about the planet is the depth. When you look at the Grand Canyon for example, how long did it take for water to carve out those ravines... |
A large concensus of geologists and scientists from CSI in California believe the Grand Canyon was formed in a very short period of time. Kind of like what would happen with a "Great Flood". Evidence for this is supported by the strata layers, fossils found, etc. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Perhaps you could state which evidence you find ridiculous. Personally I find the creationist argument to be entirely ridiculous and based on misunderstood or misconcieved science. |
How about the fact that there is really no evidence for evolution. How did something form from nothing. Has anyone observed an organic cell being formed from something inorganic? Has anyone observed a single cell (which is where evolutionist base their claim that everything evolved from) turning into plant and animal life? 
Creationist hold that God spoke the world and life into happening. This is truely faith based. Most of evolution is faith based also. No one witnessed how the eath came into existence. Evolutionist have no documentation of how things progressed. Creationist have a record of how things happened, God's word given to man, the BIBLE. 
Looking at the evidence, and having faith that God's word is valid (afterall it has been upheld for 2000+ years) could only lead to one answer.
As human's we are compelled to believe in something. Should we base that belief in something that directly impacts our destiny or in some so called scientific theory that really doesn't matter once we die. I realize I'm pushing towards another forum so I'll stop here. 
| rkgruver wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Perhaps you could state which evidence you find ridiculous. Personally I find the creationist argument to be entirely ridiculous and based on misunderstood or misconcieved science. |
How about the fact that there is really no evidence for evolution. How did something form from nothing. Has anyone observed an organic cell being formed from something inorganic? Has anyone observed a single cell (which is where evolutionist base their claim that everything evolved from) turning into plant and animal life? |
OK...in order
1) There is plenty of evidence for evolution. The fossil record, geological evidence etc.
2) Something springing from nothing is not part of evolutionary theory - it is the completely separate field of abiogenesis
3) The rest of the paragraph makes the same mistake of associating abiogenesis and evolution. The two are distinct.
| Quote: |
Creationist hold that God spoke the world and life into happening. This is truely faith based. Most of evolution is faith based also. No one witnessed how the eath came into existence. Evolutionist have no documentation of how things progressed. Creationist have a record of how things happened, God's word given to man, the BIBLE.
|
Evolutionists have a great record of how life progressed. The fossil record provides a very clear progression. It is interesting to note that a single fossil of the wrong sort would be enough to refute evolution theory and that no such example has been found. Evolution requires no faith. If one accepts the basic premis of selection then evolution is a logical consequence. Accepting the mechanism of selection could be argued to be an act of faith but it is one supported by sound theory and observational and experimental evidence so I would argue that it is a logical choice.
| Quote: |
Looking at the evidence, and having faith that God's word is valid (afterall it has been upheld for 2000+ years) could only lead to one answer.
|
Upheld in what sense ? | Quote: |
As human's we are compelled to believe in something. Should we base that belief in something that directly impacts our destiny or in some so called scientific theory that really doesn't matter once we die. I realize I'm pushing towards another forum so I'll stop here. |
Scientific theory affects every facet of existence. To say that is doesn't matter once we die is to assume that something DOES matter when we die which is an assumption I find no evidence-based imperative to make.
Regards
Chriseven i dont believe in all the evidences of teh evolution of the earth but due to lack some strong proofs we have to believe what we are believing and learning..
all the evidences seem theoritical and only few based on actual facts but what to do we have to believe it.....
till some one comes with other strong proofs....
i dont think its our earth is tooo old but we humans have not been able to find the truth about teh earth....
hope someone comes with any other reasons ....
| ccer wrote: |
even i dont believe in all the evidences of teh evolution of the earth but due to lack some strong proofs we have to believe what we are believing and learning..
all the evidences seem theoritical and only few based on actual facts but what to do we have to believe it.....
till some one comes with other strong proofs....
i dont think its our earth is tooo old but we humans have not been able to find the truth about teh earth....
hope someone comes with any other reasons .... |
The age of the Earth has been determined dozens and dozens of ways. There are so many "actual facts" about the age of the Earth that listing them all would take several pages. "Strong proofs"? i don't know what could be a stronger proof than a cold hard fact, except one that's been backed up a dozen different ways. Like the age of the Earth for example.
What possible evidence would it take to convince you that the Earth is billions of years old, if you are not convinced by the dozens and dozens of dating methods already used?
Furthermore, there is no real contradictory evidence. There is no real evidence that the Earth is much younger than we currently estimate. "Evidence" presented by creationists is almost entirely misunderstood and/or misrepresented.There are over 160 geophysical clocks, we only use a couple becaues 90% of those geophysical clocks give an earths age of less than 1million years and most of those give an age near 19 - 6 thousand. We have used dating methods to date things extremely older then they actually are, which supports evolution, but most of the geophysical clocks don't | coolsmile wrote: |
| There are over 160 geophysical clocks, we only use a couple becaues 90% of those geophysical clocks give an earths age of less than 1million years and most of those give an age near 19 - 6 thousand. We have used dating methods to date things extremely older then they actually are, which supports evolution, but most of the geophysical clocks don't |
"Geophysical clocks" are a crock. We know that the surface of the Earth is changing even today, so any surface measurements are subject to so much error, they are pretty much nonsense. But the core of the Earth is also not particularly stable, so measurements taken deeper are also questionable.
All those kinds of measurements can do is give you a lower bound on the age of the Earth. In other words, measuring the amount of aluminium in the sea can confirm to us that the Earth cannot be younger than, say, 6000 years. But it doesn't say anything about whether or not the Earth may be older than 6000 years. Measuring the amount of sediment deposited in the mountains or the Grand Canyon will tell you that they cannot be younger than those sediments... but they may have been formed very, very late in the development of the Earth.
When we take measurements that would not be affected by the Earth's geophysical we can get uncertainties of less than 5%. We have taken literally hundreds of such measurements. All are in agreement.
Creationist literature cherry picks from that tiny minority of measurements that we know are wrong, because of known contamination, and uses them to discredit the rest of the measurements. The problem with that is that we know all about those bad measurements, and even include them in the data sets (because it is unethical for a scientist to just discard data). But they make up such a tiny minority of the actual results that they don't really affect them.I am in agreement that the Earth is constantly changing and thus most of the ages calculated from samples are wrong. For example, Mt. St. Helens has produced a growing lava dome in its crater which is only 20 years old. Yet a myriad of tests (carbon-dating and other methods, for example) say that it is anywhere between several thousand and several million years old. The idea that radioactive dating methods are accurate is is complete load of garbage.
| MeddlingMonk wrote: |
| I am in agreement that the Earth is constantly changing and thus most of the ages calculated from samples are wrong. For example, Mt. St. Helens has produced a growing lava dome in its crater which is only 20 years old. Yet a myriad of tests (carbon-dating and other methods, for example) say that it is anywhere between several thousand and several million years old. The idea that radioactive dating methods are accurate is is complete load of garbage. |
Like maybe it tossed up some rocks formed millions of years ago? Hard to discuss your "facts" if you don't include references. You have a source? | Quote: |
| Hard to discuss your "facts" if you don't include references. You have a source? |
Actually, I do have sources for this information. One is Creation Magazine (once I find the Vol. No., I'll post it) and the other is a book called Thousands Not Billions by Dr. Don DeYoung.
The Creation Magazine article deals specifically with Mt. Saint Helens and its lava dome, which they tested by carbon-dating and ? dating, to show that dating methods aren't accurate (as suggested, the rocks may have a different origin or different starting amounts of C-14 and C-12 and the other substances used in dating, so we never actually can know the initial conditions). Similar cases of ages not matching calculated dating methods are also found in Vol. 20 No. 1 (fossil wood in an "ancient" lava flow yielded C-14) and Vol. 22 No. 1 (Mt. Ngauruhoe lava flows yielded dates older than the flows).
Thousands Not Billions is a report on all the different methods of dating, based on research by the R.A.T.E team (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth). They showed that there was sufficient doubt with each type of dating to question the results.
Update: The source article from Creation Magazine has since been posted on the CMI's website and is available here: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/396/. Additional articles with further information are linked from this page.
Last edited by MeddlingMonk on Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:56 am; edited 1 time in total | MeddlingMonk wrote: |
| Quote: | | Hard to discuss your "facts" if you don't include references. You have a source? |
Actually, I do have sources for this information. One is Creation Magazine |
Creationism is a religious idea, and solely religious, creationism and science are incompatible. So if any one tries to prove or find evidence for creationism through science, ignore them.
Creationist "scientists", article, and so on like to spread lies and misconception, they like to take one study or experiment that had one result to use as evidence but ignore the many many more studies and experiments that say different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating | MeddlingMonk wrote: |
| Quote: | | Hard to discuss your "facts" if you don't include references. You have a source? |
Actually, I do have sources for this information. One is Creation Magazine (once I find the Vol. No., I'll post it) and the other is a book called Thousands Not Billions by Dr. Don DeYoung.
The Creation Magazine article deals specifically with Mt. Saint Helens and its lava dome, which they tested by carbon-dating and ? dating, to show that dating methods aren't accurate (as suggested, the rocks may have a different origin or different starting amounts of C-14 and C-12 and the other substances used in dating, so we never actually can know the initial conditions). Similar cases of ages not matching calculated dating methods are also found in Vol. 20 No. 1 (fossil wood in an "ancient" lava flow yielded C-14) and Vol. 22 No. 1 (Mt. Ngauruhoe lava flows yielded dates older than the flows). |
Carbon dating has nothing to do with determining the age of the earth.
i suspect the Mt. St. Helens data you're talking about is the experiment that Dr. Steve Austin ran back in the early 90's [*]. That experiment was poorly run due to several factors. First, Dr. Austin did not properly separate the materials before dating, leading to cross-contamination in every sample. He didn't even bother to attempt to remove the contaminants because he thought his separation method was that good (see this page, and search for "No attempt was made", without the quotes).
But the most damning indictment against Austin's crap-ass research? He used a laboratory called Geochron to do the potassium/argon analysis. They don't do that kind of analysis before, but let's go back to when they did. This is an archived page from 1998 of Geochron's K-Ar dating information. Look very carefully, and see if you're smarter than Dr. Austin. What did he do wrong?
If you provide sources for your other claims, they can be discussed too. And better source information, because if someone has to guess what research you're talking about, your sources suck.
| MeddlingMonk wrote: |
| Thousands Not Billions is a report on all the different methods of dating, based on research by the R.A.T.E team (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth). They showed that there was sufficient doubt with each type of dating to question the results. |
We know that radiometric dating is not accurate. That's why we use many different types of radiometric dating. Some establish a lower limit, others establish an upper limit. By collecting huge amounts of data we are able to bracket the age of a sample. That's how we date things.
The only catch is to ensure that the sample was not contaminated at any point in time since it was created, and to determine the starting conditions. Neither is impossible, and once again, if we goof up and guess wrong for one method, one of the dozens of other methods will show that.all over the world no one mans knows the age of the world only god knows.....
| Wynand wrote: |
| I've watched Dr. Kent Hovind's seminars on creation science (www.drdino.com) and have to agree that some of the "evidence" supporting evolution, is quite ridiculous. |
Dr. Kent Hovind's seminars and other "creationist" talks are motivated by their belief in stuff people wrote down thousands of years ago (religion) not because of rational thought. They should not be considered.
Wikipedia would be by far a better source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth It's also a better way to learn about these scientific concepts than these posts.Just to point something out -
Carbon-14 dating has been mentioned several times here. As far as I know C-14 dating is only really useful for determining the age of organic material. Living organisms, like trees, absorb c-14 from the environment while they are alive. Once they stop living, they no longer absorb c-14, and the c-14 that they contain starts to decay. C-14 decays at a specific rate that allows us to get an approximate date of the death of the organism. We can use it to determine the age of a papyrus scroll, a timber from a neolithic dwelling, bone fragments in an ancient burial, and other items made from organic materials of archaeological (or paleontological) interest.
But as far as I know c-14 dating is not generally used for geological dating.
But then, I studied archeology, not geology, so I may be wrong.
No man knows the age of the earth, just YHWH knows, beacause no man has living too many time for see this.
| Jinx wrote: |
Just to point something out -
Carbon-14 dating has been mentioned several times here. As far as I know C-14 dating is only really useful for determining the age of organic material. Living organisms, like trees, absorb c-14 from the environment while they are alive. Once they stop living, they no longer absorb c-14, and the c-14 that they contain starts to decay. C-14 decays at a specific rate that allows us to get an approximate date of the death of the organism. We can use it to determine the age of a papyrus scroll, a timber from a neolithic dwelling, bone fragments in an ancient burial, and other items made from organic materials of archaeological (or paleontological) interest.
But as far as I know c-14 dating is not generally used for geological dating.
But then, I studied archeology, not geology, so I may be wrong. |
No, you're right.
The thing is, most of the people who argue against an old Earth come up with a stupidly low number as the "true" age of the Earth... around 4000 BCE. Carbon-14 dating can measure dates going back several tens of thousands of years, with phenominal accuracy in many cases... less than a 100 years error. And, because it can detect "short" periods of time, we can confirm that it works by verifying the results against dates of known events... so we can use something that we can date very accurately from the Roman Empire to prove that carbon-14 dating does work as advertised.
So, basically, carbon-14 dating can be verified without resorting to other radiometric (or other) dating methods. It can be verified by something as trivial as reading a date written on an ancient scroll - just test the scroll with carbon-14 dating and see if the date matches the date written on the scroll. Given that, it's really hard for people to argue rationally that carbon-14 doesn't work, or that it's unverifiable.
So when carbon-14 testing shows things to be 20,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 years old, it really brings a good old dose of shut-the-hell-up down on the Young Earthers.
Yes, as you say, that doesn't really help us much from the standpoint of actually dating the real age of the Earth, which requires other methods, like K-Ar. But for the sake of shutting up people who are claiming the Earth is 6,000 years old, it does wonders. | Wynand wrote: |
Can the earth really be millions (billions) of years old? I've watched Dr. Kent Hovind's seminars on creation science (www.drdino.com) and have to agree that some of the "evidence" supporting evolution, is quite ridiculous.
How old is the earth? On which facts would you base your assumptions on? |
Answer:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html | Indi wrote: |
| But for the sake of shutting up people who are claiming the Earth is 6,000 years old, it does wonders. |
Also good are ice cores and tree rings, for which we have absolute dates (good for calibrating radioisotope dating, BTW) going back tens of thousands of years. | Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | But for the sake of shutting up people who are claiming the Earth is 6,000 years old, it does wonders. |
Also good are ice cores and tree rings, for which we have absolute dates (good for calibrating radioisotope dating, BTW) going back tens of thousands of years. |
Getting on for half-a-million year old ice @ Dome B, Antarctica.Looks like I was off by an order of magnitude or so.
Lake Vostok* - a few hundred metres below the drill head**, lies ahead - it's (very cold) liquid water is reportedly 2 million years old: it also contains an island (reported in 2005, iirc) : and probably has micro-organisms 'fed' by geothermal heat and tidal movement/circulations within!
Weird stuff, reality. ed.
* e.g. http://www.resa.net/nasa/antarctica.htm
** But i could be out of date here. Let me ask you a question in response: Is the Earth 5,000/6,000 years old like the Bible says? If so, you refute the existence of all dinosaurs? If so, you refute cold hard evidence of fossils in your face? How?
What evidence do I base the truth on? Scientific reasoning, logic, observation, etc. What do you base yours on? The speech from a creationist who has sworn his life to god? Sounds like a nice source.
| rkgruver wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Perhaps you could state which evidence you find ridiculous. Personally I find the creationist argument to be entirely ridiculous and based on misunderstood or misconcieved science. |
How about the fact that there is really no evidence for evolution. How did something form from nothing. Has anyone observed an organic cell being formed from something inorganic? Has anyone observed a single cell (which is where evolutionist base their claim that everything evolved from) turning into plant and animal life?
Creationist hold that God spoke the world and life into happening. This is truely faith based. Most of evolution is faith based also. No one witnessed how the eath came into existence. Evolutionist have no documentation of how things progressed. Creationist have a record of how things happened, God's word given to man, the BIBLE.
Looking at the evidence, and having faith that God's word is valid (afterall it has been upheld for 2000+ years) could only lead to one answer.
As human's we are compelled to believe in something. Should we base that belief in something that directly impacts our destiny or in some so called scientific theory that really doesn't matter once we die. I realize I'm pushing towards another forum so I'll stop here. |
It's really impossible to discuss the subject of evolution and what not with someone who doesn't even have basic, high school biological knowledge. Based on this post, I would venture to say it would take a year of hard education to even get you started on the basics of evolution and biology. It's pretty obvious you've shut out every single facet of knowledge about evolution that comes from science, so it's pointless to have the discussion with you.
Just to point one thing out to you: evolution does not happen overnight. A human didn't suddenly pop out of a monkey one day and every plant we know didn't suddenly rise overnight from a single cell. So, to answer your question of "has anyone witnessed it personally..." The answer is no because nobody lives for millions of years and we've only studied evolution in depth for a very short time. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There's still libraries full of scientific proof and evidence that evolution exists.
Evolution is not faith. Evolution exists whether you want to believe it or not. The theory of evolution is a theory of the mechanisms of evolution, not whether it exists/happens or not. THERE IS PROOF AND EVIDENCE that it occurs and has occurred in the past...scientists simply do not have a 100% answer on HOW it happens. Much like the theory of gravity...we KNOW it exists and it has been monitored and observed scientifically. We simply don't know the exact mechanisms it works by. The theory has nothing to do with whether or not it exists.
But like I said, it would take years to allow you to understand the subject, and you don't seem too keen on learning it, only proving your faith in god, so I'll leave it at that. If you and your gang want to believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old then fine - but please don't try and insult everyone else's intelligence by trying to convince us. It is laughable that a section of the online community who by definition must have enough of an 'education' to be able to understand how to use a computer still cling to ideas propagated by religious fanatics such as this Dr Dino. Do you people have no clue that these conmen are just out there to entice you to go to their nice new amusement park and ride on the dinosaurs? Now there are many quasi-religious organisations out there but yours is one that I find most ridiculous, and would not even have bothered to entertain your argument for a second were it not so worringly dangerous that people still manage to delude themsleves in this way.
I can only hope that one day you see the error of your ways before you start making suicide bombers of yourselves and try and bring down the established scientific community that dare to provide you with reams and reams of scientific evidence that says you are stupid.
David.
According to what i have read and heard Earths age is more that 5 million years old.There is no exact idea of universe scientists are still predicting different things from whtever new things that they get. 
But its very difficult to find out or predict the structure of universe before.Some say it was the same as of now,while some say that there were few planets before and then they got splitted up and form new once.There is little bit of proof of the second saying.Lets see what new things are comming up now. | Cddhesh wrote: |
According to what i have read and heard Earths age is more that 5 million years old.There is no exact idea of universe scientists are still predicting different things from whtever new things that they get.
But its very difficult to find out or predict the structure of universe before.Some say it was the same as of now,while some say that there were few planets before and then they got splitted up and form new once.There is little bit of proof of the second saying.Lets see what new things are comming up now. |
No, you have obviously not read correctly. The age of the Earth is around 4.54 Billion years (give or take 1%). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
There is a pretty good idea of the age of the universe - around 13.7 billion years. The structure and history of the universe is reasonably well understood.
http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/I think from dinosour time to now, earth age must be more than a billion years
dinosour time to now is only a small fraction of the earth's age. Read the posts above you. Bikerman is smart. Hes done research, or rather has some common sense probably and the scientific community has determined the age of the earth and the universe accurately.
and guess what earth has survived for so long, eg radiations before atmospheres were created and meteor strikes, but now it is facing the biggest threat... the human race.. i wonder how long earth will last
some countries have started environment protection acts but think about it, can you really survive without electricity... using simple things like electricity means burning coal, producing carbon and forming green house gas, not to mention driving cars and stuffs
one of God's biggest mistake was creating the human race. Not only we screwed up the earth and we are trying to search for other planets such as mars to dwell onto.
We might poison the Earth and make it uninhabitable for ourselves but we're still a LONG way off from being able to destroy it even by accident.
And for the record - dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago - not 1 billion. Although of course - not everything died out. Just the largest of the cold-blooded dinosaurs.
David.
no one can find out the exact age , its just too complicated and in the end when they come up with an age who is going to dispute
just like the number of stars in sky
i rest my case
| doppleganger wrote: |
no one can find out the exact age , its just too complicated and in the end when they come up with an age who is going to dispute
just like the number of stars in sky
i rest my case |
Um, what???
So your 'case' is that any problem that is complicated is impossible? Did you even actually read any of the previous posts?
David. | doppleganger wrote: |
no one can find out the exact age , its just too complicated and in the end when they come up with an age who is going to dispute
just like the number of stars in sky
i rest my case |
What case? It's not at all difficult to work out a rough age for the Earth. Refining that figure to give a more exact dating is a bit more complex but, again, it's not beyond our wit - which is why we have been able to do so.
The current figure of 4.54 billion years is accurate to less than 1%. It has been arrived at largely by radiometric dating (NOT carbon dating). Supporting evidence comes from analysis of the Sun (comparing it's luminosity and mass with other observable stars) which indicates that the Solar System is not more than about 4.57 billion years. Finally, radiometric dating of meteorites confirms the age to a very high level of accuracy.
Who is going to dispute this? Any scientist who thinks there is the slightest chance it might be wrong - it would almost certainly lead to a Nobel prize for any scientist who could establish a significant error in the current figure.
you mean its not 2008 years old?Here is Full FAQ about this question 
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
| Quote: |
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 the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently 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.
If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 1 for technical detail.
A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.
............ |
[Edit by Bockman !! Please use quote tags for quoted text]
