Misplaced Pages

Age of Earth: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:01, 8 October 2013 view sourceReatlas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,393 editsm →See also: "The"← Previous edit Revision as of 19:12, 8 October 2013 view source 173.21.11.151 (talk) Just a few false things.Tag: blankingNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
The world has not existed for millions of years. Science has proven it, and so has the bible. Isaiah 43:7 lets us veiw the likeness of God and says that we are created in His image! He created us for His glory! And it also says in Genesis 1:26 that man was put in charge of the demoninon of the earth, animals, fish,birds,and everything on the earth. Therefore we could not have come from a monkey!!!!! And the earth could not have existed for millions of years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God loves you and he died on the cross for your sins and mine! If you woud like to learn more, go to www.studyrevelation.com and find out for yourseld the truth of the Bible!:)
{{About|the scientific age of the Earth|religious beliefs|dating creation}}
{{geology2}}

The '''age of the Earth''' is 4.54 ± 0.05 ] years {{nowrap|(4.54 × 10<sup>9</sup> years ± 1%).}}<ref name="USGS1997">{{cite web
| year=1997 | title=Age of the Earth
| url=http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
| publisher=U.S. Geological Survey
| accessdate=2006-01-10
| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20051223072700/http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html| archivedate= 23 December 2005 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal
| last=Dalrymple | first=G. Brent
| title=The age of the Earth in the twentieth century: a problem (mostly) solved | journal=Special Publications, Geological Society of London
| year=2001 | volume=190
| issue=1 | pages=205–221
| doi=10.1144/GSL.SP.2001.190.01.14 |bibcode = 2001GSLSP.190..205D }}
</ref><ref>{{cite journal
| author= Manhesa, Gérard; Allègre, Claude J.; Dupréa, Bernard; and Hamelin, Bruno
| title=Lead isotope study of basic-ultrabasic layered complexes: Speculations about the age of the earth and primitive mantle characteristics
| journal=]
| year=1980 | volume=47
| issue= 3 | pages=370–382
| doi=10.1016/0012-821X(80)90024-2
| bibcode=1980E&PSL..47..370M
}}</ref> This age is based on evidence from ] of ] material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and ] ]. Following the ] and the development of radiometric age dating, ] showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.<ref name="Boltwood">{{cite journal
| last=Boltwood | first=B. B.
| authorlink=Bertram Boltwood | title=On the ultimate disintegration products of the radio-active elements. Part II. The disintegration products of uranium | journal=American Journal of Science
| year=1907 | volume=23 | pages=77–88
| doi=10.2475/ajs.s4-23.134.78
| issue=134
}}<br />For the abstract, see: {{cite book
| year=1907 | title=Chemical Abstracts | pages=817
| publisher=American Chemical Society
| url=http://books.google.com/?id=1su2AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA817 | accessdate=2008-12-19
| location=New York, London
| author1=Chemical Abstracts Service, American Chemical Society }}</ref>

The oldest such minerals analyzed to date&nbsp;– small crystals of ] from the ] of ]&nbsp;– are at least 4.404 billion years old.<ref name="nature409">{{cite journal
| author=Wilde, S. A.; Valley, J. W.; Peck, W. H.; Graham C. M. | title=Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago | journal=Nature
| date=2001-01-11 | volume=409 | pages=175–178
| doi=10.1038/35051550
| pmid=11196637
| issue=6817
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| author=Valley, John W.; Peck, William H.; Kin, Elizabeth M. | url=http://www.geology.wisc.edu/outcrop/99/99_pdfs/iso_topics.pdf | year=1999 | title=Zircons Are Forever
| work=The Outcrop, Geology Alumni Newsletter
| pages=34–35
| publisher=University of Wisconsin-Madison
| accessdate=2008-12-22
}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal
| author=Wyche, S.; Nelson, D. R.; Riganti, A.
| title=4350–3130 Ma detrital zircons in the Southern Cross Granite–Greenstone Terrane, Western Australia: implications for the early evolution of the Yilgarn Craton
| journal=Australian Journal of Earth Sciences
| year=2004 | volume=51 | issue=1 | pages=31–45
| doi=10.1046/j.1400-0952.2003.01042.x }}</ref> Comparing the ] and ] of the ] to those of other ]s, it appears that the ] cannot be much older than those rocks. ]s &nbsp;– the oldest known solid constituents within ] that are formed within the solar system&nbsp;– are 4.567 billion years old,<ref>{{cite journal
| doi = 10.1126/science.1073950
| year = 2002
| month = Sep
| author = Amelin, Y; Krot, An; Hutcheon, Id; Ulyanov, Aa
| title = Lead isotopic ages of chondrules and calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions
| volume = 297
| issue = 5587
| pages = 1678–83
| issn = 0036-8075
| pmid = 12215641
| journal = Science
| bibcode=2002Sci...297.1678A}}</ref><ref name="nature436">{{cite journal
| author=Baker, J.; Bizzarro, M.; Wittig, N.; Connelly, J.; Haack, H. | title=Early planetesimal melting from an age of 4.5662 Gyr for differentiated meteorites | journal=Nature | date=2005-08-25
| volume=436 | pages=1127–1131
| doi=10.1038/nature03882
| pmid=16121173
| issue=7054 | bibcode=2005Natur.436.1127B}}</ref> giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of ].

It is hypothesised that the ] of Earth began soon after the formation of the Ca-Al-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Because the exact amount of time this accretion process took is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine. It is also difficult to determine the exact age of the ]s on Earth, exposed at the surface, as they are aggregates of minerals of possibly different ages.

==Development of modern geologic concepts==
{{Main|History of geology#19th century|l1=History of geology}}
{{Further|Relative dating}}
] as seen from ]]]
Studies of ], the layering of rocks and earth, gave ] an appreciation that Earth may have been through many changes during its existence. These layers often contained ] of unknown creatures, leading some to interpret a progression of organisms from layer to layer.<ref>{{cite book
| first=Charles, Sir | last=Lyell
| authorlink=Charles Lyell | year=1866
| title=Elements of Geology; or, The Ancient Changes of the Earth and its Inhabitants as Illustrated by Geological Monuments
| edition=Sixth | location=New York
| url=http://books.google.com/?id=pbkQAAAAIAAJ | accessdate=2008-12-19
| publisher=D. Appleton and company
}}</ref><ref name="stiebing">{{cite book
| first=William H. | last=Stiebing
| year=1994 | title=Uncovering the Past
| publisher=Oxford University Press US
| isbn=0-19-508921-9 }}</ref>

] (17th century) was one of the first Western naturalists{{clarify|date=September 2011}} to appreciate the connection between fossil remains and strata.<ref name="stiebing" /> His observations led him to formulate important ] concepts (i.e., the "]" and the "]").<ref>{{cite book
| first=Michael E. | last=Brookfield | year=2004
| title=Principles of Stratigraphy | page=116
| publisher=Blackwell Publishing
| isbn=1-4051-1164-X }}</ref> In the 1790s, the British naturalist ] hypothesized that if two layers of rock at widely differing locations contained similar fossils, then it was very plausible that the layers were the same age.<ref>{{cite web
| last=Fuller | first=J. G. C. M.
| date=2007-07-17 | publisher=The Geological Society
| work=Geoscientist | accessdate=2008-12-19 | url=http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/page1017.html | title=Smith's other debt, John Strachey, William Smith and the strata of England 1719–1801
| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20081124213722/http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/page1017.html| archivedate= 24 November 2008 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref> William Smith's nephew and student, ], later calculated by such means that Earth was about 96 million years old.<ref>{{cite journal
| last=Burchfield | first=Joe D.
| title=The age of the Earth and the invention of geological time | journal=Geological Society, London, Special Publications | year=1998
| volume=143
| issue=1 | pages=137–143
| doi=10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.143.01.12 |bibcode = 1998GSLSP.143..137B }}</ref>

The naturalist ], regarded as the founder of ]n science, suggested in the mid-18th century that Earth had been created separately from the rest of the universe, several hundred thousand years before. Lomonosov's ideas were mostly speculative, but in 1779, the ] naturalist the ] tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth using an experiment: He created a small globe that resembled Earth in composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.

Other naturalists used these hypotheses to construct a ], though their timelines were inexact as they did not know how long it took to lay down stratigraphic layers. In 1830, the geologist ], developing ideas found in Scottish natural philosopher ], popularized the concept that the features of Earth were in perpetual change, eroding and reforming continuously, and the rate of this change was roughly constant. This was a challenge to the traditional view, which saw the history of Earth as static, with changes brought about by intermittent ]. Many naturalists were influenced by Lyell to become "uniformitarians" who believed that changes were constant and uniform.

==Early calculations==
]
{{Further2|]}}
In 1862, the physicist ] (who later became Lord Kelvin) of ] published calculations that fixed the age of Earth at between 20 million and 400 million years.<ref name="England et al 2007">
{{cite journal
| author = England, P.; Molnar, P.; Righter, F.
| title = John Perry's neglected critique of Kelvin's age for the Earth: A missed opportunity in geodynamics
| journal = GSA Today | year=2007
| month = January
| volume = 17
| issue = 1
| pages = 4–9
| doi = 10.1130/GSAT01701A.1 }}</ref><ref>Dalrymple (1994) pp. 14–17, 38</ref>
He assumed that Earth had formed as a completely molten object, and determined the amount of time it would take for the near-surface to cool to its present temperature. His calculations did not account for ] via ] (a process then unknown to science) or ] inside the Earth, which allows more heat to escape from the interior to warm rocks near the surface.<ref name="England et al 2007"/>

Geologists had trouble accepting such a short age for Earth. Biologists could accept that Earth might have a finite age, but even 100 million years seemed much too short to be plausible. ], who had studied Lyell's work, had proposed his theory of the ] of organisms by ], a process whose combination of random heritable variation and cumulative selection implies great expanses of time. (Geneticists have subsequently measured the rate of ] of species, using the ], to date the ] of all living organisms no later than ]).

In a lecture in 1869, Darwin's great advocate, ], attacked Thomson's calculations, suggesting they appeared precise in themselves but were based on faulty assumptions. The German physicist ] (in 1856) and the Canadian astronomer ] (in 1892) contributed their own calculations of 22 and 18 million years respectively to the debate: they independently calculated the amount of time it would take for the Sun to condense down to its current diameter and brightness from the nebula of gas and dust from which it was born.<ref name=Dal14-17>Dalrymple (1994) pp. 14–17</ref> Their values were consistent with Thomson's calculations. However, they assumed that the Sun was only glowing from the heat of its ]. The process of solar ] was not yet known to science.

Other scientists backed up Thomson's figures as well. ]'s son, the astronomer ] of the ], proposed that Earth and ] had broken apart in their early days when they were both molten. He calculated the amount of time it would have taken for ] to give Earth its current 24-hour day. His value of 56 million years added additional evidence that Thomson was on the right track.<ref name=Dal14-17/>

The last estimate Thomson gave, in 1897, was: "that it was more than 20 and less than 40 million year old, and probably much nearer 20 than 40".<ref>Dalrymple (1994) pp. 14, 43</ref> In 1899 and 1900, ] of the ] calculated the rate at which the oceans should have accumulated ] from ] processes, and determined that the oceans were about 80 to 100 million years old.<ref name=Dal14-17/>

==Radiometric dating==
{{Main|Radiometric dating}}

===Overview===
] ]s naturally contain certain ] and not others. By the process of ] of radioactive isotopes occurring in a rock, exotic elements can be introduced over time. By measuring the ] of the stable end product of the decay, coupled with knowledge of the ] and initial concentration of the decaying element, the age of the rock can be calculated.<ref name=nichols>{{cite book | author=Nichols, Gary | title=Sedimentology and Stratigraphy | chapter=21.2 Radiometric Dating | pages=325–327 | publisher=John Wiley & Sons | year=2009 | isbn=978-1405193795}}</ref> Typical radioactive end products are ] from ]-40 and ] from ] and ] decay.<ref name=nichols/> If the rock becomes molten, as happens in Earth's ], such nonradioactive end products typically escape or are redistributed.<ref name=nichols/> Thus the age of the oldest terrestrial rock gives a minimum for the age of Earth assuming that a rock cannot have been in existence for longer than Earth itself.

===Convective mantle and radioactivity===
In 1892, Thomson had been made ] in appreciation of his many scientific accomplishments. Kelvin calculated the age of Earth by using ], and arrived at an estimate of 100 million years old.<ref name="kp">{{cite journal
| title=Kelvin, Perry and the Age of the Earth
| first1=Philip C. | last1=England | first2=Peter
| last2=Molnar | first3=Frank M. | last3=Richter
| journal=American Scientist | volume=95
| issue=4 | year=2007 | pages=342–349
| doi=10.1511/2007.66.3755 }}</ref> He did not realize that Earth has a highly viscous fluid ], and this invalidated his estimate. In 1895, ] produced an age of Earth estimate of 2 to 3 billion years old using a model of a convective mantle and thin crust.<ref name="kp" /> Kelvin stuck by his estimate of 100 million years, and later reduced the estimate to about 20 million years.

Radioactivity would introduce another factor in the calculation. In 1896, the French chemist ] discovered ]. In 1898, ] and ] discovered the radioactive elements ] and ]. In 1903 Pierre Curie and his associate ] announced that radium produces enough heat to melt its own weight in ice in less than an hour.

Geologists quickly realized that the discovery of radioactivity upset the assumptions on which most calculations of the age of Earth were based. These calculations assumed that Earth and Sun had formed at some time in the past and had been steadily cooling since that time. Radioactivity provided a process that generated heat. George Darwin and John Joly were the first to point this out, also in 1903.<ref>{{cite book
| first=John | last=Joly | year=1909
| title=Radioactivity and Geology: An Account of the Influence of Radioactive Energy on Terrestrial History | edition=1st | page=36
| publisher=Archibald Constable & Co., ltd
| location=London, UK }} Reprinted by BookSurge Publishing (2004) ISBN 1-4021-3577-7.</ref>

===Invention of radiometric dating===
{{Refimprove section|date=October 2012}}
Radioactivity, which had overthrown the old calculations, yielded a bonus by providing a basis for new calculations, in the form of ].

]

] and ], working jointly at ], had continued their work on radioactive materials and concluded that radioactivity was due to a spontaneous transmutation of atomic elements. In radioactive decay, an element breaks down into another, lighter element, releasing alpha, beta, or gamma ] in the process. They also determined that a particular isotope of a radioactive element decays into another element at a distinctive rate. This rate is given in terms of a "]", or the amount of time it takes half of a mass of that radioactive material to break down into its "decay product".

Some radioactive materials have short half-lives; some have long half-lives. ] and ] have long half-lives, and so persist in Earth's crust, but radioactive elements with short half-lives have generally disappeared. This suggested that it might be possible to measure the age of Earth by determining the relative proportions of radioactive materials in geological samples. In reality, radioactive elements do not always decay into nonradioactive ("stable") elements directly, instead, decaying into other radioactive elements that have their own half-lives and so on, until they reach a ]. Such "decay series", such as the uranium-radium and thorium series, were known within a few years of the discovery of radioactivity, and provided a basis for constructing techniques of radiometric dating.

The pioneers of radioactivity were ], a young chemist just out of ], and the energetic Rutherford. Boltwood had conducted studies of radioactive materials as a consultant, and when Rutherford lectured at Yale in 1904,<ref>{{cite book
| first=E. | last=Rutherford | year=1906
| title=Radioactive Transformations
| publisher=Charles Scriber's Sons
| location=London }} Reprinted by Juniper Grove (2007) ISBN 978-1-60355-054-3.</ref> Boltwood was inspired to describe the relationships between elements in various decay series. Late in 1904, Rutherford took the first step toward radiometric dating by suggesting that the ]s released by radioactive decay could be trapped in a rocky material as ] atoms. At the time, Rutherford was only guessing at the relationship between alpha particles and helium atoms, but he would prove the connection four years later.

Soddy and ], then at ] in London, had just determined the rate at which radium produces alpha particles, and Rutherford proposed that he could determine the age of a rock sample by measuring its concentration of helium. He dated a rock in his possession to an age of 40 million years by this technique. Rutherford wrote,

{{quote|''I came into the room, which was half dark, and presently spotted Lord Kelvin in the audience and realized that I was in trouble at the last part of my speech dealing with the age of the earth, where my views conflicted with his. To my relief, Kelvin fell fast asleep, but as I came to the important point, I saw the old bird sit up, open an eye, and cock a baleful glance at me! Then a sudden inspiration came, and I said, 'Lord Kelvin had limited the age of the earth, provided no new source was discovered. That prophetic utterance refers to what we are now considering tonight, radium!' Behold! the old boy beamed upon me.<ref>{{cite book
| first=Arthur Stewart | last=Eve | year=1939
| title=Rutherford: Being the life and letters of the Rt. Hon. Lord Rutherford, O. M.
| publisher=Cambridge University Press
| location=Cambridge }}</ref>}}

Rutherford assumed that the rate of decay of radium as determined by Ramsay and Soddy was accurate, and that helium did not escape from the sample over time. Rutherford's scheme was inaccurate, but it was a useful first step.

Boltwood focused on the end products of decay series. In 1905, he suggested that ] was the final stable product of the decay of radium. It was already known that radium was an intermediate product of the decay of uranium. Rutherford joined in, outlining a decay process in which radium emitted five alpha particles through various intermediate products to end up with lead, and speculated that the radium-lead decay chain could be used to date rock samples. Boltwood did the legwork, and by the end of 1905 had provided dates for 26 separate rock samples, ranging from 92 to 570 million years. He did not publish these results, which was fortunate because they were flawed by measurement errors and poor estimates of the half-life of radium. Boltwood refined his work and finally published the results in 1907.<ref name="Boltwood" />

Boltwood's paper pointed out that samples taken from comparable layers of strata had similar lead-to-uranium ratios, and that samples from older layers had a higher proportion of lead, except where there was evidence that lead had ] out of the sample. His studies were flawed by the fact that the decay series of thorium was not understood, which led to incorrect results for samples that contained both uranium and thorium. However, his calculations were far more accurate than any that had been performed to that time. Refinements in the technique would later give ages for Boltwood's 26 samples of 250 million to 1.3 billion years.

===Arthur Holmes establishes radiometric dating===
Although Boltwood published his paper in a prominent geological journal, the geological community had little interest in radioactivity. Boltwood gave up work on radiometric dating and went on to investigate other decay series. Rutherford remained mildly curious about the issue of the age of Earth but did little work on it.

] tinkered with Rutherford's helium method until 1910 and then ceased. However, Strutt's student ] became interested in radiometric dating and continued to work on it after everyone else had given up. Holmes focused on lead dating, because he regarded the helium method as unpromising. He performed measurements on rock samples and concluded in 1911 that the oldest (a sample from Ceylon) was about 1.6 billion years old.<ref>Dalrymple (1994) p. 74</ref> These calculations were not particularly trustworthy. For example, he assumed that the samples had contained only uranium and no lead when they were formed.

More important research was published in 1913. It showed that elements generally exist in multiple variants with different masses, or "]s". In the 1930s, isotopes would be shown to have nuclei with differing numbers of the neutral particles known as "]". In that same year, other research was published establishing the rules for radioactive decay, allowing more precise identification of decay series.

Many geologists felt these new discoveries made radiometric dating so complicated as to be worthless. Holmes felt that they gave him tools to improve his techniques, and he plodded ahead with his research, publishing before and after the First World War. His work was generally ignored until the 1920s, though in 1917 ], a professor of geology at Yale, redrew geological history as it was understood at the time to conform to Holmes's findings in radiometric dating. Barrell's research determined that the layers of strata had not all been laid down at the same rate, and so current rates of geological change could not be used to provide accurate timelines of the history of Earth.

Holmes's persistence finally began to pay off in 1921, when the speakers at the yearly meeting of the ] came to a rough consensus that Earth was a few billion years old, and that radiometric dating was credible. Holmes published ''The Age of the Earth, an Introduction to Geological Ideas'' in 1927 in which he presented a range of 1.6 to 3.0 billion years. No great push to embrace radiometric dating followed, however, and the die-hards in the geological community stubbornly resisted. They had never cared for attempts by physicists to intrude in their domain, and had successfully ignored them so far. The growing weight of evidence finally tilted the balance in 1931, when the ] of the US ] decided to resolve the question of the age of Earth by appointing a committee to investigate. Holmes, being one of the few people on Earth who was trained in radiometric dating techniques, was a committee member, and in fact wrote most of the final report.<ref name = Dal7778>Dalrymple (1994) pp. 77–78</ref>

The report concluded that radioactive dating was the only reliable means of pinning down geological time scales. Questions of bias were deflected by the great and exacting detail of the report. It described the methods used, the care with which measurements were made, and their error bars and limitations.

===Modern radiometric dating===
] continues to be the predominant way scientists date geologic timescales. Techniques for radioactive dating have been tested and fine-tuned for the past 50+ years. Forty or so different dating techniques have been utilized to date, working on a wide variety of materials. Dates for the same sample using these different techniques are in very close agreement on the age of the material.

Possible ] problems do exist, but they have been studied and dealt with by careful investigation, leading to sample preparation procedures being minimized to limit the chance of contamination. Hundreds to thousands of measurements are done daily with excellent precision and accurate results. Even so, research continues to refine and improve radiometric dating to this day.{{Citation needed|reason=paragraph needs sources and expansion|date=April 2011}}

====Why meteorites were used====
An age of 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by ] using uranium-lead isotope dating (specifically ]) on several meteorites including the ] and published in 1956.<ref name="Patterson">{{cite journal
| last=Patterson | first=Claire
| title=Age of meteorites and the earth
| journal=Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
| url=http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf
| year=1956 | volume=10 | issue=4 | pages=230–237 | accessdate=2009-07-07
| doi=10.1016/0016-7037(56)90036-9
| bibcode=1956GeCoA..10..230P }}</ref>

]

The quoted age of Earth is derived, in part, from the Canyon Diablo meteorite for several important reasons and is built upon a modern understanding of cosmochemistry built up over decades of research.

Most geological samples from Earth are unable to give a direct date of the formation of Earth from the solar nebula because Earth has undergone differentiation into the core, mantle, and crust, and this has then undergone a long history of mixing and unmixing of these sample reservoirs by ], ] and ].

All of these processes may adversely affect isotopic dating mechanisms because the sample cannot always be assumed to have remained as a closed system, by which it is meant that either the parent or daughter ] (a species of atom characterised by the number of neutrons and protons an atom contains) or an intermediate daughter nuclide may have been partially removed from the sample, which will skew the resulting isotopic date. To mitigate this effect it is usual to date several minerals in the same sample, to provide an ]. Alternatively, more than one dating system may be used on a sample to check the date.

Some meteorites are furthermore considered to represent the primitive material from which the accreting solar disk was formed.<ref>{{cite conference | author=Carlson, R. W.; Tera, F.
| title=Lead-Lead Constraints on the Timescale of Early Planetary Differentiation
| booktitle=Conference Proceedings, Origin of the Earth and Moon | page=6
| publisher=Lunar and Planetary Institute
| date=December 1–3, 1998
| location=Houston, Texas | url=http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4066.pdf |accessdate=2008-12-22 | archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20081216214311/http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4066.pdf| archivedate= 16 December 2008 | deadurl= no}}</ref> Some have behaved as closed systems (for some isotopic systems) soon after the solar disk and the planets formed. To date, these assumptions are supported by much scientific observation and repeated isotopic dates, and it is certainly a more robust hypothesis than that which assumes a terrestrial rock has retained its original composition.

Nevertheless, ancient ] lead ] of ] have been used to date the formation of Earth as these represent the earliest formed lead-only minerals on the planet and record the earliest homogeneous lead-lead isotope systems on the planet. These have returned age dates of 4.54 billion years with a precision of as little as 1% margin for error.<ref>Dalrymple (1994) pp. 310–341</ref>

Statistics for several meteorites that have undergone isochron dating are as follows:<ref name="BGDarymple">{{cite journal
| author=Dalrymple, Brent G.
| title=Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of the Earth and Its Cosmic Surroundings
| year=2004
| publisher=Stanford University Press
| isbn = 978-0-8047-4933-6
| pages = 147, 169
}}
</ref>

{| <!-- &#8199; is ], the width of one digit. -->
!colspan=4 align=left| 1. St. Severin (ordinary chondrite)
|-
|width=1em| || 1. || Pb-Pb isochron || 4.543 ± 0.019 GY
|-
| || 2. || Sm-Nd isochron || 4.55  ± 0.33 GY
|-
| || 3. || Rb-Sr isochron || 4.51  ± 0.15 GY
|-
| || 4. ||| Re-Os isochron || 4.68  ± 0.15 GY
|-
!colspan=4 align=left| 2. Juvinas (basaltic achondrite)
|-
| || 1. || Pb-Pb isochron || 4.556 ± 0.012 GY
|-
| || 2. || Pb-Pb isochron || 4.540 ± 0.001 GY
|-
| || 3. || Sm-Nd isochron || 4.56  ± 0.08 GY
|-
| || 4. || Rb-Sr isochron || 4.50  ± 0.07 GY
|-
!colspan=4 align=left| 3. Allende (carbonaceous chondrite)
|-
| || 1. || Pb-Pb isochron || 4.553 ± 0.004 GY
|-
| || 2. || Ar-Ar age spectrum || 4.52  ± 0.02 GY
|-
| || 3. || Ar-Ar age spectrum || 4.55  ± 0.03 GY
|-
| || 4. || Ar-Ar age spectrum&nbsp; || 4.56  ± 0.05 GY
|}

====Canyon Diablo meteorite====
{{Further|Canyon Diablo (meteorite)}}
]
The Canyon Diablo meteorite was used because it is a very large representative of a particularly rare type of meteorite that contains ] minerals (particularly ], FeS), metallic ]-] alloys, plus silicate minerals.

], Arizona where the Canyon Diablo meteorite was found.]]
This is important because the presence of the three mineral phases allows investigation of isotopic dates using samples that provide a great separation in concentrations between parent and daughter nuclides. This is particularly true of uranium and lead. Lead is strongly ] and is found in the sulfide at a much greater concentration than in the silicate, versus uranium. Because of this segregation in the parent and daughter nuclides during the formation of the meteorite, this allowed a much more precise date of the formation of the solar disk and hence the planets than ever before.

The Canyon Diablo date has been backed up by hundreds of other dates, from both terrestrial samples and other meteorites.<ref>{{cite conference
| author=Terada, K.; Sano, Y.
| title=In-situ ion microprobe U-Pb dating of phosphates in H-chondrites | booktitle=Proceedings, Eleventh Annual V. M. Goldschmidt Conference
| publisher=Lunar and Planetary Institute
| date=May 20–24, 2001
| location=Hot Springs, Virginia | url=http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/gold2001/pdf/3306.pdf | accessdate=2008-12-22
| bibcode=2001eag..conf.3306T | archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20081216214310/http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/gold2001/pdf/3306.pdf| archivedate= 16 December 2008 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref> The meteorite samples, however, show a spread from 4.53 to 4.58 billion years ago. This is interpreted as the duration of formation of the solar nebula and its collapse into the solar disk to form the Sun and the planets. This 50 million year time span allows for accretion of the planets from the original solar dust and meteorites.

The moon, as another extraterrestrial body that has not undergone plate tectonics and that has no atmosphere, provides quite precise age dates from the samples returned from the Apollo missions. Rocks returned from the moon have been dated at a maximum of around 4.4 and 4.5 billion years old. Martian meteorites that have landed upon Earth have also been dated to around 4.5 billion years old by ]. Lunar samples, since they have not been disturbed by weathering, plate tectonics or material moved by organisms, can also provide dating by direct ] examination of ] tracks. The accumulation of dislocations generated by high energy cosmic ray particle impacts provides another confirmation of the isotopic dates. ] is only useful on material that has not been melted, since melting erases the crystalline structure of the material, and wipes away the tracks left by the particles.

Altogether, the concordance of age dates of both the earliest terrestrial lead reservoirs and all other reservoirs within the solar system found to date are used to support the hypothesis that Earth and the rest of the solar system formed at around 4.53 to 4.58 billion years ago.

===Helioseismic verification===
The radiometric date of meteorites can be verified with studies of the Sun. The Sun can be dated using ] methods that strongly agree with the radiometric dates found for the oldest meteorites.<ref>{{cite journal
| author=Bonanno, A.; Schlattl, H.; Paternò, L.
| title=The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS | year=2002 | month=August
| journal=Astronomy and Astrophysics | volume=390
| issue=3
| pages=1115–1118 | doi=10.1051/0004-6361:20020749
| bibcode=2002A&A...390.1115B
| id= | arxiv=astro-ph/0204331}}</ref>

==See also==
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Bibliography==
*{{cite book
| first = G. Brent
| last = Dalrymple
| date = 1994-02-01
| title = The Age of the Earth
| publisher = Stanford University Press
| isbn = 0-8047-2331-1 }}

==Further reading==
* Baadsgaard, H.; Lerbekmo, J.F.; Wijbrans, J.R., 1993. Multimethod radiometric age for a bentonite near the top of the Baculites reesidei Zone of southwestern Saskatchewan (Campanian-Maastrichtian stage boundary?). ''Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences'', v.30, p.&nbsp;769–775.
* Baadsgaard, H. and Lerbekmo, J.F., 1988. A radiometric age for the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary based on K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb ages of bentonites from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Montana. ''Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences'', v.25, p.&nbsp;1088–1097.
* Eberth, D.A. and Braman, D., 1990. Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and vertebrate paleontology of the Judith River Formation (Campanian) near Muddy Lake, west-central Saskatchewan. ''Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology'', v.38, no.4, p.&nbsp;387–406.
* Goodwin, M.B. and Deino, A.L., 1989. The first radiometric ages from the Judith River Formation (Upper Cretaceous), Hill County, Montana. ''Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences'', v.26, p.&nbsp;1384–1391.
* Gradstein, F. M.; Agterberg, F.P.; Ogg, J.G.; Hardenbol, J.; van Veen, P.; Thierry, J. and Zehui Huang., 1995. A Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous time scale. IN: Bergren, W. A. ; Kent, D.V.; Aubry, M-P. and Hardenbol, J. (eds.), ''Geochronology, Time Scales, and Global Stratigraphic Correlation''. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication No. 54, p.&nbsp;95–126.
* Harland, W.B., Cox, A.V.; Llewellyn, P.G.; Pickton, C.A.G.; Smith, A.G.; and Walters, R., 1982. ''A Geologic Time Scale'': 1982 edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 131p.
* Harland, W.B.; ]; Cox, A.V.; Craig, L.E.; Smith, A.G.; Smith, D.G., 1990. ''A Geologic Time Scale'', 1989 edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, p.&nbsp;1–263. ISBN 0-521-38765-5
* Harper, C.W., Jr., 1980. ''Relative age inference in paleontology''. Lethaia, v. 13, p.&nbsp;239–248.
* Obradovich, J.D., 1993. A Cretaceous time scale. IN: Caldwell, W.G.E. and Kauffman, E.G. (eds.). ''Evolution of the Western Interior Basin''. Geological Association of Canada, Special Paper 39, p.&nbsp;379–396.
* Palmer, Allison R. (compiler), 1983. The Decade of North American Geology 1983 Geologic Time Scale.'' Geology'', v. 11, p.&nbsp;503–504. September 12, 2004.
* Powell, James Lawrence, 2001, ''Mysteries of Terra Firma: the Age and Evolution of the Earth'', Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0-684-87282-X

==External links==
*
* &nbsp;– ''Initial version of this article was based on a public domain text by ]''
*
*
{{In Our Time|Ageing the Earth|p005493g|Ageing_the_Earth}}

{{Earth}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Age Of The Earth}}
]
]
]

{{Link FA|nl}}

Revision as of 19:12, 8 October 2013

The world has not existed for millions of years. Science has proven it, and so has the bible. Isaiah 43:7 lets us veiw the likeness of God and says that we are created in His image! He created us for His glory! And it also says in Genesis 1:26 that man was put in charge of the demoninon of the earth, animals, fish,birds,and everything on the earth. Therefore we could not have come from a monkey!!!!! And the earth could not have existed for millions of years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God loves you and he died on the cross for your sins and mine! If you woud like to learn more, go to www.studyrevelation.com and find out for yourseld the truth of the Bible!:)