How old is the earth?

[Tormod]

___Finally, finally :rant:, ocean salinity is no help in determining the Earth's age; if I recall the primary evidence for the 4.5 billion years derives from the analysis of the decay of elements. :eek:

 

And this is of course the lesson of this thread. Well done, Turtle.

[goku]

thankyou very much. i now know that radio active decay is the accepted method for determining the age of the earth. i assume scientists create some radio active matter, then test it using their dating method to be sure of it's accuracy. right? help me out here.

[Erasmus00]

thankyou very much. i now know that radio active decay is the accepted method for determining the age of the earth. i assume scientists create some radio active matter, then test it using their dating method to be sure of it's accuracy. right? help me out here.

 

Yes, radioactive dating is the most accepted method for dating the age of the earth. However, that dating has proven reliable when tested against tree rings, ice cores, and other dating methods. The science is entirely consistent.

-Will

[MortenS]

thankyou very much. i now know that radio active decay is the accepted method for determining the age of the earth. i assume scientists create some radio active matter, then test it using their dating method to be sure of it's accuracy. right? help me out here.

 

I found a website for you: Radiometric dating: a Christian perspective:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

PDF: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens2002.pdf

 

It should answer most of your questions about radioactive dating, and then some.

[Turtle]

Yes, radioactive dating is the most accepted method for dating the age of the earth. However, that dating has proven reliable when tested against tree rings, ice cores, and other dating methods. The science is entirely consistent.

-Will

___One of those methods we haven't mentioned is the differing magnetic polarity in the alignment of crystals in lava extruded from spreading centers on tectonic plate boundaries. While the causes of Earth's magnetic pole drift & polarity shifts remains under investigation, the timing is, as Erasmus says, entirely consistant.

Related Articles:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050810130729.htm

http://earth.usc.edu/~slund/lundbio/research.html

[goku]

using tree rings to test radiometric dating?

isn't that like using a red rider BB gun to test tank armor.

[Fishteacher73]

Tree ring dating (or dendrochronology)is probably one of the more accurate methods of dating. The alternating rings of of growth paterns only form durring specific seasons. These sets of rings can then be interpeted exactly as calender years. I thought you were a farmer goku...Also:(Check your pm's )

[goku]

not a tree farmer, dairy farmer.

does the tree they use have billions of rings, billions of years old? if not,,,,,, BB gun tank armor

[Fishteacher73]

You are mixing analogies and confusing science. Has anyone ever measured out a light year with a 12" ruler? No... But you know how long it takes a photon to travel 12", so you can extrapolate how far it would go in a year... The same logic applies. But there are trees that age in the 4000 year old ballpark and verify various radiometric dating techniques.

 

Not there are not possible ways to contaminate and skew an individual test, but if a bulk of tests show a similar date, then it is a good bet it is accurate.

[goku]

the simple fact is that if the earth is billions of years old the ocean would be way saltier than it is. after all how could nature take the salt out of the water.

 

the only reason why scientists use billions of years is because the evolutionary theory needs billions of years to make it sound more possible.

[goku]

if a bulk of tests show a similar date, then it is a good bet it is accurate.

just because all the tests say the same thing doesn't mean that the tests are the correct ones to be useing.

 

you said that i was useing a 12 inch ruler to measure a light year, what about useing a 4000 year old tree to measure billions of years?

[Erasmus00]

the simple fact is that if the earth is billions of years old the ocean would be way saltier than it is. after all how could nature take the salt out of the water.

 

Salt is continuously deposited on the sea floor. This removes it from the water. The whole premise of your argument is invalid, though in the 18th century you would have stood in good company (Halley, of the comet, believed you could use ocean salt to date the Earth. He was, however, wrong).

 

the only reason why scientists use billions of years is because the evolutionary theory needs billions of years to make it sound more possible.

 

Many of the people doing the dating are not, in fact, biologists. Also, science is not some conspiracy to war against faith. Many scientists (biologists included) are religious, many are christian.

-Will

[goku]

so if i put some salt water in a glass and let it set the salt will settle to the bottom?

[GAHD]

salts get used, salts get trapped, and salts also sink. Salts that get to the bottom get used by natural reactions in locations with heat and exposed magma. The same basic laws of nature are used by people in smelters to purify metal. :confused:

[jkellmd]

Many of the people doing the dating are not, in fact, biologists. Also, science is not some conspiracy to war against faith. Many scientists (biologists included) are religious, many are christian.

-Will

 

True, true. Copernicus was a Catholic priest, almost a bishop. Indeed, in the entire history of western thought, what professed atheist ever rose to significant prominence between the times of Galen and Nietzsche (1700 odd years)?

 

But that is neither here nor there. A thinking man has to view the evidence. Until more accurate tests become available, we have to accept the inaccuacies of those we have now (which are still overwhelmingly supported by the weight of all of the evidence). If we can agree that the current combined methods of scientific dating is likely to be accurate to within an order of magnitude (or even two), Goku's argument is moot. As far as this conversation is concerned, what's an extra zero here or there? Use the bible for what it's good for - living your life, not for dating the universe or critiquing scientific evidence.

 

Leaving scientific inquiry to scientists should not negate your belief. Rather than uselessly trying to refute what does not fit with what you think of God, see the beauty evident in evolution, biology, chemistry and physics - there's plenty of it. How can you claim to understand God or his creation is by reading only a single book? Find a pattern in the way things are designed; that is the foundation of all inquiry. If you wish to see the creator, Goku, study the creation.

[goku]

i'd like to see someone take a piece of bone from an animal that the birth date is known, and, date it useing all the current methods :confused:

[jkellmd]

i'd like to see someone take a piece of bone from an animal that the birth date is known, and, date it useing all the current methods :confused:

 

In their efforts to debunk the Shroud of Turin, scientists used one of the capes of Loius XIII (or XV, I forget), which was made from a material known to be of the same age. Unfortunately, we don't have any materials much older than this, at least any that we're willing to destroy in order to provide corroberative dates to every rock and bone that we find. Scientists have to extrapolate beyond those dates. Radiocarbon dating, by itself, is not considered to be accurate beyond 40k years or so, so other systems are used(ice cores, changes in the earth's magnetic field, etc).