What is the method to accurately determine the age of the world?

[Pag_Hingowa]

From the thread “Can science prove the world is over 4 billion yrs. old?” I’d like to ask another question, but I didn’t want to take the topic of that thread too far afield. So, I decided to discuss it in another thread I’d here create.

I am more concerned with the method not the actual age of the world.
If the method is sound then the age it gives will be correct.

So…

What is the scientific method to aqccurately determine the age of the world?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

From the thread “Can science prove the world is over 4 billion yrs. old?” I’d like to ask another question, but I didn’t want to take the topic of that thread too far afield. So, I decided to discuss it in another thread I’d here create.

I am more concerned with the method not the actual age of the world.
If the method is sound then the age it gives will be correct.

So…

What is the scientific method to aqccurately determine the age of the world?

Age of the World? Or Age of the Earth?
I do not know other than Carbon 14.
I am interested in other answers.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

My understanding is that the earth age was calculated from radiometric dating of samples from meteorites on earth and lunar samples. The world is assumed to be at least the age of the oldest known samples.

The radioactive substance that are dated are said to have been formed by nucleosynthesis from supernovas. During a super nova the heavier elements are formed. Getting the ratio between a radioactive materia in a sample type When these chunks of matter collect (thanks to gravity) they form planets and other heavenly objects (including seeding new stars) and the earth and other planets are thought to have formed this way. So the dating of the radioactive material is really dating the of the time at which the elements were formed from supernova nucleosynthesis. A planet can continue accretion throughout it’s “life” picking up new mass from other rocks and gas in space colliding or being pull by the planet’s gravity.

 

[rossum]

What is the scientific method to aqccurately determine the age of the world?

There is a Wikipedia article: Age of the Earth.

You can also have a look at The Age of the Earth.

Both of those cover the age of the planet Earth (about 4.5 billion years). The age of the universe is determined differently and is about 13.7 billion years. Again Wikipedia has an article on the subject.

Both Wikipedia articles and Chris Stassen’s piece have a number of useful references for more detail.

 

[Cyclophile]

cut it in half… count the rings?? … just being silly…

What everyone else has already said, as far as I know, carbon-14

 

[JRKH]

Agree with the others. So far as I know, Carbon dating is still the most commonly used method. Though I believe there is a healthy dose of "deductive reasoning involved in the earlier stages, like when the Earth was still an asteroid sucking, element cooking, noxious gas spewing, molten glob.

But truthfully, while I find the science interesting, more and more my question becomes…
“To what end”? Why do we need to know?

Peace
James

 

[rossum]

Agree with the others. So far as I know, Carbon dating is still the most commonly used method. Though I believe there is a healthy dose of "deductive reasoning involved in the earlier stages, like when the Earth was still an asteroid sucking, element cooking, noxious gas spewing, molten glob.

But truthfully, while I find the science interesting, more and more my question becomes…
“To what end”? Why do we need to know?

Not “carbon dating”. Carbon dating can go back about 50,000 years, perhaps 70,000 with a very clean sample. What I think you meant to say was “radiometric dating” which can measure ages in the billions of years. There is a good explanation of radiometric dating by Roger Wiens, Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective.

rossum

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Note that radiometric dating depends on the assumption that nuclear decay times have been constant through the many eons. There is no was to prove this. One just assumes it for lack of anything better.

 

[JRKH]

Not “carbon dating”. Carbon dating can go back about 50,000 years, perhaps 70,000 with a very clean sample. What I think you meant to say was “radiometric dating” which can measure ages in the billions of years. There is a good explanation of radiometric dating by Roger Wiens, Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective.

rossum

Thanks for the correction.

Of course my “Why do we need to know” attitude still stands.

Peace
James

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Thanks for the correction.

Of course my “Why do we need to know” attitude still stands.

Peace
James

Yes, Carbon14 needs life and could not measure the age of the Earth.
Never heard of radiometric measure. Another book that will go on top of the ones I must read.
Thanks for all the info.

 

[rossum]

Note that radiometric dating depends on the assumption that nuclear decay times have been constant through the many eons. There is no was to prove this. One just assumes it for lack of anything better.

There is no assumption, past decay rates have been measured in the spectra of distant astronomical objects. In particular SN1987A has shown that decay rates have remained constant for the last 150,000 years.

A minor cyclical variation in decay rates has recently been measured due to the neutrino flux from the Sun, but since this variation is cyclical it does not have a great effect on long term measurements.

rossum

 

[inocente]

Of course my “Why do we need to know” attitude still stands.

Agreed it makes no difference in our faith and daily lives, but apart from knowledge for its own sake there’s the maxim that truth cannot contradict truth - all evidence must fit together, so for instance big bang and evolution must fit with the age of the Earth.

 

[Pag_Hingowa]

But truthfully, while I find the science interesting, more and more my question becomes…
“To what end”? Why do we need to know?

The answer is simple. We often see something written down that we accept it without question ie; accuracy etc

 

[Pag_Hingowa]

There is no assumption, past decay rates have been measured in the spectra of distant astronomical objects. In particular SN1987A has shown that decay rates have remained constant for the last 150,000 years.

A minor cyclical variation in decay rates has recently been measured due to the neutrino flux from the Sun, but since this variation is cyclical it does not have a great effect on long term measurements.

rossum

The age of the earth cannot be directly measured like for example a tree and its rings.
with any indirect method comes assumptions. Assumptions are things we take for granted but actually we have no proof of, that’s why they are called assumptions.

 

[rossum]

The age of the earth cannot be directly measured like for example a tree and its rings.
with any indirect method comes assumptions. Assumptions are things we take for granted but actually we have no proof of, that’s why they are called assumptions.

We assume that if we find a 3 million year old piece of native rock then the Earth is at least three million years old.

We do indeed use some indirect methods, for example meteorites. Astronomy tells us that the whole planetary system formed at about the same time from an accretion disc round the Sun. Dating a meteorite gives us a date for the accretion disc. Indirectly that dates the Earth, since the Earth is also a part of the same accretion disc.

There are many direct methods, like tree-ring counting, which show that the Earth is older than Ussher’s 6,000 years.

Be careful of using the word “proof” in a science discussion. Strictly speaking, science does not do “proof”, since in principle every scientific theory can be replaced with a better theory and every measurement comes with error limits on it.

rossum

 

[Pag_Hingowa]

We assume that if we find a 3 million year old piece of native rock then the Earth is at least three million years old.

We do indeed use some indirect methods, for example meteorites. Astronomy tells us that the whole planetary system formed at about the same time from an accretion disc round the Sun. Dating a meteorite gives us a date for the accretion disc. Indirectly that dates the Earth, since the Earth is also a part of the same accretion disc.

There are many direct methods, like tree-ring counting, which show that the Earth is older than Ussher’s 6,000 years.

Be careful of using the word “proof” in a science discussion. Strictly speaking, science does not do “proof”, since in principle every scientific theory can be replaced with a better theory and every measurement comes with error limits on it.

rossum

Ok, what ‘evidence’ is there that says radioactive decay always proceeded at the rate it is now? I am talking about zirconium and its compounds.

 

[rossum]

Ok, what ‘evidence’ is there that says radioactive decay always proceeded at the rate it is now? I am talking about zirconium and its compounds.

See Iron, Cobalt, and Nickel in SN 1987A.

Specifically for Zirconium there is Emery, (1972), though that requires a payment to read the full article.

In general Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) is a good source for the actual scientific papers underlying what you read in the general press and media.

rossum

 

[Pag_Hingowa]

We do indeed use some indirect methods, for example meteorites. Astronomy tells us that the whole planetary system formed at about the same time from an accretion disc round the Sun. Dating a meteorite gives us a date for the accretion disc. Indirectly that dates the Earth, since the Earth is also a part of the same accretion disc.

this isn’t necessarily true.
the retrograde orbits of the moons of jupiter and saturn could not have come from the same “cloud” as the planets themselves.
but i will have to admit earths orbit follows the progression of planetary orbits in general.

 

[rossum]

this isn’t necessarily true.
the retrograde orbits of the moons of jupiter and saturn could not have come from the same “cloud” as the planets themselves.
but i will have to admit earths orbit follows the progression of planetary orbits in general.

The retrograde moons will have been picked up from the asteroid belt. Depending on whether they were in an initial solar orbit outside or inside the relevant gas giant they will have clockwise or anti-clockwise orbits.

rossum