How old is earth

[Betwrong]

How old do you think Earth is? Why?

I think nobody can answer this question correctly. Scientists use Radiometric dating and they believe they are pretty accurate in their calculations, but what if the speed of the radioactive decay was different say 5 thousand years ago than it is now?

I too think that scientist really predict the age of the earth. everything can not be explained. We may never truly know the age of the earth.

I think you were going to say "scientist can't really predict the age of the earth" and by predict you meant determine. Yes, they can't. They say the age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years, but this assertion is based on radiometric age dating which might be not accurate.

[carlfebz2]

How old do you think Earth is? Why?

I think nobody can answer this question correctly. Scientists use Radiometric dating and they believe they are pretty accurate in their calculations, but what if the speed of the radioactive decay was different say 5 thousand years ago than it is now?

I too think that scientist really predict the age of the earth. everything can not be explained. We may never truly know the age of the earth.

I think you were going to say "scientist can't really predict the age of the earth" and by predict you meant determine. Yes, they can't. They say the age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years, but this assertion is based on radiometric age dating which might be not accurate.

In his sentence is very confusing cause it contradicting to each other maybe he would like to say scientist can't really predict. as you said. No one could tell whats the exact age of Earth. 

[kik1977]

How old do you think Earth is? Why?

I think nobody can answer this question correctly. Scientists use Radiometric dating and they believe they are pretty accurate in their calculations, but what if the speed of the radioactive decay was different say 5 thousand years ago than it is now?

I too think that scientist really predict the age of the earth. everything can not be explained. We may never truly know the age of the earth.

I think you were going to say "scientist can't really predict the age of the earth" and by predict you meant determine. Yes, they can't. They say the age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years, but this assertion is based on radiometric age dating which might be not accurate.

In his sentence is very confusing cause it contradicting to each other maybe he would like to say scientist can't really predict. as you said. No one could tell whats the exact age of Earth. 

That's interesting. I am really curious to know which degree you have and what your field of study is. A geologist I suppose?

[oOxenonOo]

Well there will be lot of answers, i can give you funniest one.

Christians will answer something more then 2000 years, my grandmother can explain you how something like that is possible. I can open skype conf if you are interested 

[BADecker]

Scientists have calculated that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, with an error range of 50 million years.

still here is no conformation about this, the scientist are still confused about this. they are giving different ideas and figure about the age of the world. i think that is only Allah who know the real age of the earth and only he can know the ending date of the Earth.

Appeal to ignorance and putting therefore it is god. Remove your head out of your ass to avoid thinking this poorly. If you think science confuse you then don't use the things that scientist made and discovered, go back in stone age life.

Nobody has to talk about God to see that the scientists who calculate the age of the earth constantly use limiting words as disclaimers so that they can protect themselves from libel. This is the way they tell us, themselves, that they don't know that what they are telling us is factual.

Scientist may not tell the absolute truth but they can tell part of it and it means to us.  I believe in scientist because unlike religion claiming certaing things, they claim a certain fact by observing and gathering data. It means it was scrutinized before presented as fact.

For example. Scientists can tell the truth of the half-life of C-14. Because of this, if the C-14 creation rate in the atmosphere was always the same as it is now, scientists could accurately date things.

The point is, scientists don't know if the C-14 creation rate was always the same. In fact, they don't know if there was any C-14 created in the atmosphere at all beyond about 5,000 years ago. So, we don't need all the examples of carbon dating inaccuracies that abound right now. We can see that nobody knows the truth using scientific means.



EDIT: If this was all, we could say that science simply made a mistake. But the fact that they don't tell you that they don't know, shows that they are deceptive, and shouldn't be believed without personal examination of EVERYTHING that they say.

It could be a foundation to base things, even though they might be wrong then what's wrong with that? As long as they are changeable it will never be a big deal. If they see something that is a mistake they can easily remove that data and look for another, scientist are doing trial and error until they get things that may suit things right.

I easily agree with this in many scientists. But not in others.


A scientist does some scientific studies, and tells someone what he found.

Then other scientists, the media, the governments and even book-writers take his information and say all kinds of "stuff" about it.

Then, average people read or hear about this information from:
1. The scientist who does the original studies;
2. Other scientists, the media, the governments and even book-writers;
3. And from their ignorant friends and neighbors.

We get different stories from all over the place. So we need to screw our heads on, and take a good look at the stories to see how they match logic and the whole of science.

The point isn't that scientists make mistakes at times, and other times they don't. The point isn't that science is changeable in some thing, and maybe not in other things.

The point is that anybody who claims he is telling the facts, when he knows that he might not be telling the facts, is an absolute liar. If we are truly attempting to be honest, we need to do due diligence on everything that we proclaim as fact before we proclaim it as fact. But if we find that we were mistaken in our claims, we need to confess our mistake.

Scientists are not stupid. They know that they don't know how old the universe and earth are. But it comes down to us as 13 to 15 billion years... like it is a fact. Who is the liar?

[nururochac]

How old do you think Earth is? Why?

I think nobody can answer this question correctly. Scientists use Radiometric dating and they believe they are pretty accurate in their calculations, but what if the speed of the radioactive decay was different say 5 thousand years ago than it is now?

I too think that scientist really predict the age of the earth. everything can not be explained. We may never truly know the age of the earth.

I think you were going to say "scientist can't really predict the age of the earth" and by predict you meant determine. Yes, they can't. They say the age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years, but this assertion is based on radiometric age dating which might be not accurate.

It is not accurate but it is close to that and they determine in using carbon-dating which is proven useful and reliable for scientific basis. This dating also can draw a line on our pre-historic pattern and even that happen long years ago.

[gabmen]

The Earth is around 4.54 billion years old, as per Space.com website. I think, this is only a scientific guess. As science progress, there are several other factors to consider. Rock formations changes from time to time. I do not think humans can still calculate the age of the Earth. It will be endless. Nobody will ever know the real answer to this question.

[BADecker]

Every scientific thing that suggests the age of the earth beyond about 5,000 years ago, is based on the assumption that the geological and other activity of the earth has always been going on as it does today, and that all the changes are gradual ones.

The idea of a great flood covering the earth - like the Great Flood of Noah's day - is recorded in the traditions, the writings, and the ancient drawings (rock carvings) of peoples and nations around the world. The writings of the earth and the Flood in the Bible, suggest a way that the C-14 (used in carbon dating) may not have been in existence on earth before the Great Flood.

If there were no pre-Flood C-14 on earth, carbon dating is completely and gigantically false. There are flaws like this in all the dating methods of the universe, including the cosmic ones. Scientists simply ASSUME things that they have no knowledge about. See this video for a clear understanding of what I am saying here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE... and this website that has the explanation of the video written down - https://steemit.com/science/@morpheustitania/the-science-delusion-banned-ted-talk.

Science ASSUMES a whole lot of things that they don't know. Then the universities, the media, and even some of the scientists tell you that it is truth WHEN THEY DON'T REALLY KNOW. When you believe it, you become part of their religion.

[criptix]

They didnt used the c-14 method.

To find out the age of earth they determined the amount of PB which was created due the radio active decay of Uranium in meteorites that felt down on earth.

Meteorites that didnt change since 4.5 billion years except for the radio active decay of the chemical elements.

[BADecker]

They didnt used the c-14 method.

To find out the age of earth they determined the amount of PB which was created due the radio active decay of Uranium in meteorites that felt down on earth.

Meteorites that didnt change since 4.5 billion years except for the radio active decay of the chemical elements.

The meteorites were meteors before they changed. Then they changed and became meteorites as they fell to earth. Nobody knows what they were while they were still meteors. Why not? Because nobody was up there to analyze them enough to know. It's all ASSUMPTION. If there is any real meteor science, there is extremely little of it.

The thing to do would be to go out there in a space plane, grab a meteor, analyze it as best possible, attach super-heat-resistant monitors to it, and dump it onto the earth at speeds and vectors that it would have had if it had hit earth on its own. Then we might have some scientific knowledge about meteors... at least one of them.

And that is just the beginning.

The popular scientific age of the earth is all assumptions.

[BADecker]

Scientists have calculated that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, with an error range of 50 million years.

still here is no conformation about this, the scientist are still confused about this. they are giving different ideas and figure about the age of the world. i think that is only Allah who know the real age of the earth and only he can know the ending date of the Earth.

Appeal to ignorance and putting therefore it is god. Remove your head out of your ass to avoid thinking this poorly. If you think science confuse you then don't use the things that scientist made and discovered, go back in stone age life.

Nobody has to talk about God to see that the scientists who calculate the age of the earth constantly use limiting words as disclaimers so that they can protect themselves from libel. This is the way they tell us, themselves, that they don't know that what they are telling us is factual.

Scientist may not tell the absolute truth but they can tell part of it and it means to us.  I believe in scientist because unlike religion claiming certaing things, they claim a certain fact by observing and gathering data. It means it was scrutinized before presented as fact.

For example. Scientists can tell the truth of the half-life of C-14. Because of this, if the C-14 creation rate in the atmosphere was always the same as it is now, scientists could accurately date things.

The point is, scientists don't know if the C-14 creation rate was always the same. In fact, they don't know if there was any C-14 created in the atmosphere at all beyond about 5,000 years ago. So, we don't need all the examples of carbon dating inaccuracies that abound right now. We can see that nobody knows the truth using scientific means.



EDIT: If this was all, we could say that science simply made a mistake. But the fact that they don't tell you that they don't know, shows that they are deceptive, and shouldn't be believed without personal examination of EVERYTHING that they say.

It could be a foundation to base things, even though they might be wrong then what's wrong with that? As long as they are changeable it will never be a big deal. If they see something that is a mistake they can easily remove that data and look for another, scientist are doing trial and error until they get things that may suit things right.

The thing that is basically wrong with it doesn't have anything to do with scientific discovery and examination. The thing that is wrong is that we are being lied to (not necessarily by the scientists themselves). We are being told that this or that is the scientific truth, when much of the time the scientific truth is not known. Lying to people is wrong.

[BitcoinPaw]

People talking that  earth age is around 4,5 millards, but we will never know how old is earth without better technolagy and new scientiests.

[Gimpeline]

They didnt used the c-14 method.

To find out the age of earth they determined the amount of PB which was created due the radio active decay of Uranium in meteorites that felt down on earth.

Meteorites that didnt change since 4.5 billion years except for the radio active decay of the chemical elements.

The meteorites were meteors before they changed. Then they changed and became meteorites as they fell to earth. Nobody knows what they were while they were still meteors. Why not? Because nobody was up there to analyze them enough to know. It's all ASSUMPTION. If there is any real meteor science, there is extremely little of it.

The thing to do would be to go out there in a space plane, grab a meteor, analyze it as best possible, attach super-heat-resistant monitors to it, and dump it onto the earth at speeds and vectors that it would have had if it had hit earth on its own. Then we might have some scientific knowledge about meteors... at least one of them.

And that is just the beginning.

The popular scientific age of the earth is all assumptions.

And the wild guess of goat herders from the iron age with no education what so ever is so much better..

[BADecker]

They didnt used the c-14 method.

To find out the age of earth they determined the amount of PB which was created due the radio active decay of Uranium in meteorites that felt down on earth.

Meteorites that didnt change since 4.5 billion years except for the radio active decay of the chemical elements.

The meteorites were meteors before they changed. Then they changed and became meteorites as they fell to earth. Nobody knows what they were while they were still meteors. Why not? Because nobody was up there to analyze them enough to know. It's all ASSUMPTION. If there is any real meteor science, there is extremely little of it.

The thing to do would be to go out there in a space plane, grab a meteor, analyze it as best possible, attach super-heat-resistant monitors to it, and dump it onto the earth at speeds and vectors that it would have had if it had hit earth on its own. Then we might have some scientific knowledge about meteors... at least one of them.

And that is just the beginning.

The popular scientific age of the earth is all assumptions.

And the wild guess of goat herders from the iron age with no education what so ever is so much better..

Don't know what goat herders have to say, but Moses' info about what to write, directly from God, is the best we have.

[Spendulus]

How old do you think Earth is? Why?

I think nobody can answer this question correctly. Scientists use Radiometric dating and they believe they are pretty accurate in their calculations, but what if the speed of the radioactive decay was different say 5 thousand years ago than it is now?

There are a great many ways to estimate age of planetary bodies, not just radioactive decay. 

The speed of light is something to consider.  If, say the earth was 6000 years old, the universe would have no stars farther away than 6000 light years.  And new ones beyond that would be popping into existence all the time, as the sphere expanded.  That's not what's happening.

The light from some stars has traveled a billion years to get to us.

[BADecker]

How old do you think Earth is? Why?

I think nobody can answer this question correctly. Scientists use Radiometric dating and they believe they are pretty accurate in their calculations, but what if the speed of the radioactive decay was different say 5 thousand years ago than it is now?

There are a great many ways to estimate age of planetary bodies, not just radioactive decay. 

The speed of light is something to consider.  If, say the earth was 6000 years old, the universe would have no stars farther away than 6000 light years.  And new ones beyond that would be popping into existence all the time, as the sphere expanded.  That's not what's happening.

The light from some stars has traveled a billion years to get to us.

Even Big Bang Theory suggests holes in the light distance thing listed above.

Nobody knows what happened scientifically in the creation 6,200 years ago or so.

If you see a wall of solid concrete, but never saw a cement truck, or saw one dump concrete, you might have all kinds of suggestions and theories about how that wall got there.

[RealBitcoin]

Why?

You must be too lazy to go to wikipedia and read it, you can actually do it in 15 seconds.

[razor5cl]

Even Big Bang Theory suggests holes in the light distance thing listed above.

Nobody knows what happened scientifically in the creation 6,200 years ago or so.

If you see a wall of solid concrete, but never saw a cement truck, or saw one dump concrete, you might have all kinds of suggestions and theories about how that wall got there.

First of all, I'm no expert in physics, is there a source on the first point? Just that the idea the first person suggested sounds fairly reasonable, I'm wondering what the evidence is against it?

Secondly, we have a pretty good idea of what happened 6,200 years ago. In geological time 6,200 years is a blink of an eye. In fact, humans had been around for a while 6,200 years ago, and had already developed agriculture and basic civilizations. The lineages that would develop into modern day humans first diverged from chimpanzees(our closest relative in evolutionary terms) 6,000,000 years ago, and anatomically, behaviourally modern humans had developed by 50,000 years ago.

I don't really see the idea of the last point - we have a lot of experience with molecular and geological dating methods as well as study of the fossil records that gives strong evidence for a lot of the information we have now about the history of nature, the Earth, and our own species and its evolution.

[RealBitcoin]

First of all, I'm no expert in physics, is there a source on the first point? Just that the idea the first person suggested sounds fairly reasonable, I'm wondering what the evidence is against it?

Secondly, we have a pretty good idea of what happened 6,200 years ago. In geological time 6,200 years is a blink of an eye. In fact, humans had been around for a while 6,200 years ago, and had already developed agriculture and basic civilizations. The lineages that would develop into modern day humans first diverged from chimpanzees(our closest relative in evolutionary terms) 6,000,000 years ago, and anatomically, behaviourally modern humans had developed by 50,000 years ago.

I don't really see the idea of the last point - we have a lot of experience with molecular and geological dating methods as well as study of the fossil records that gives strong evidence for a lot of the information we have now about the history of nature, the Earth, and our own species and its evolution.

There have been some coins and vases that date back to 30,000 years. Carbon dating is not precise but no way would miss 24,000 years.

[BADecker]

Even Big Bang Theory suggests holes in the light distance thing listed above.

Nobody knows what happened scientifically in the creation 6,200 years ago or so.

If you see a wall of solid concrete, but never saw a cement truck, or saw one dump concrete, you might have all kinds of suggestions and theories about how that wall got there.

First of all, I'm no expert in physics, is there a source on the first point? Just that the idea the first person suggested sounds fairly reasonable, I'm wondering what the evidence is against it?

Big Bang suggests that in an instant, stars, planets, all kinds of materials and energy were spewed from a single point into a gigantic size, and continued to expand at both, increasing velocities in some places, and decreasing velocities in others. The speed of light could absolutely not have been uniform back then.

If you search for it, you can find scientific data that shows that the speed of light isn't an uniform thing right now, long after things have stabilized. Google and Youtube search on "Sheldrake, speed of light."

Secondly, we have a pretty good idea of what happened 6,200 years ago. In geological time 6,200 years is a blink of an eye. In fact, humans had been around for a while 6,200 years ago, and had already developed agriculture and basic civilizations. The lineages that would develop into modern day humans first diverged from chimpanzees(our closest relative in evolutionary terms) 6,000,000 years ago, and anatomically, behaviourally modern humans had developed by 50,000 years ago.

This is the exact thing that we are talking about. Why do we and scientists think like this?

Pottery dating based on civilization backwards-in-time extrapolation can only go back more-or-less accurately, about 4,500 years, if that.

Genetic and mitochondrial dating suggest a divergence from the original woman to be not that far back in history.

When you look at the basic scientific papers by those scientists who have done dating studies, all of the papers use limiting words like "if" and "maybe" and "we think" and "possibly," and even direct statements that tell us that they are only speculating regarding the time of things.

Evolution is mathematically impossible - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0. Google it and you will find that even the debunkers of the impossibility math show by their language that they are not sure even when they say that they are sure.

I don't really see the idea of the last point - we have a lot of experience with molecular and geological dating methods as well as study of the fossil records that gives strong evidence for a lot of the information we have now about the history of nature, the Earth, and our own species and its evolution.

If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere beyond 5,000 years ago, carbon dating suggestions would only be off by billions of years. Nobody knows for a fact that there was C-14 in the atmosphere back then. The closest we have is the Bible record that suggests that there was a high-water-content upper atmosphere which would block the cosmic rays necessary for converting nitrogen into C-14. The Great Flood of Noah's day - which is referenced in writings and cave drawings are and traditions of many peoples around the world - could easily have destroyed the upper atmosphere water curtain, so that C-14 in the atmosphere is only a recent thing. The point is, nobody ever went back there to analyze what it was like back then. And none of those people left us a clear enough scientific record so that we know. We only guess. Carbon dating is all a guess.

How long does it take to fossilize something? Google it. The standard suggested scientific minimum is 10,000 years. There is present day evidence that it can take as short as a few months. But here is the big question. How long does it take for something to rot? Yet in some of the so-called ancient fossils we see delicate tissues being preserved. Delicate tissues don't last for even 3 months in the presence of the putrification process. The point is, fossilization is a very inaccurate science. It is another science that suggests something that we only guess at.



The point is, somehow the sciences that we use to determine the age of the earth, have been treated as fact when there is little if any fact in the results. We could talk all day on this. But you can easily search the Internet for debunking and attempted debunking, this way and that, to see for yourself that we really don't know.