How Do We Know the Earth Is 4.6 Billion Years Old? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

How Do We Know the Earth Is 4.6 Billion Years Old?
in Science

By billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts edited April 2019

How Do We Know the Earth Is 4.6 Billion Years Old?

We know the Earth is old. But how do we know its age?


Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/#JZymWZWw6pk3YH4p.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=114&v=YSau4HTNjkE


SMARTNEWS Keeping you current

How Do We Know the Earth Is 4.6 Billion Years Old?

We know the Earth is old. But how do we know its age?

SMITHSONIAN.COM 
MAY 16, 2014

The Earth is very old. But how old, exactly? And how can we know with any degree of confidence? As Henry Reich describes in the video above, the process of scientifically estimating the age of the Earth revolves around, essentially, finding the oldest piece of the planet we can, then figuring out how old that piece is.

Finding super old rocks is conceptually straightforward, but practically difficult. The processes of plate tectonics mean that the Earth is constantly recycling its rock, breaking it down into magma in the interior before pumping it back up to the surface once more. But old rocks do exist, says Reich, and the oldest rock we know is a tiny piece of zircon found in western Australia.

The process of figuring out a rock's age often falls to the scientific techniques of radiometric dating, the most famous of which is radiocarbon dating. This process focuses on the ratio between the number of carbon-14 and carbon-12 isotopes in any once-living being: that ratio indicates how long it's been since that being was alive. But carbon is not the only element that can be dated—a whole host of others exist. In uranium-lead dating, for instance, the radioactive decay of uranium into lead proceeds at a reliable rate.

Based on the very old zircon rock from Australia we know that the Earth is at least 4.374 billion years old. But it could certainly be older. Scientists tend to agree that our little planet is around 4.54 billion years old—give or take a few hundred million.


Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/#JZymWZWw6pk3YH4p.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987AlofRI
The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • The earth is not more than 7000 years old. By the way where they got the 4.6 date they dated space rocks
    PlaffelvohfenAmpersandZombieguy1987AlofRI
  • @calebsica
    there are buildings that have been dated back to 10000 bc
    AlofRI
  • we don't know for a fact because in the test they did a lot hd to be assumed
  • In truth a measurement of Time in the specification that is being made by its public interpretation has not been developed yet. To meet the specification a price tag of about 4.8 Billion dollars would need to be paid.

    However, the method of setting an educated estimation is based on several things as we are using years as a gauge for the collective history to be recorded in. To find a precise age of earth a price tag of 2.1 Trillion dollars would be required. This would include a 50% non-refundable deposit and a escrow account for the balance.

    I personally do not think the average person has need for this kind of detail of Energy, Mass Mathematic Time. One in part of the price high tag. Two its only realistic use is for fast deep universe travel and navigation. In which a budget of Nonillion/Quintillion would be easily reached as the resources become endless.

  • No one really knows much less has a defiant answer on this issue all our existence is just a opinion not factual just not imperil evidence just a around about opinion handed down through theory not factual information only believe systems just like we don’t understand how old the universe is just different degrees of infinity. 
  • When zircon is forming, uranium integrates into its crystal lattice. Once the crystal forms completely, the uranium already existing in the zircon can naturally decay into lead, caused by a process known as radioactive decay. It then becomes a simple matter of determining the ratio of uranium (that has not yet decayed) to lead. From there, we can calculate the age of the zircon crystal. Another technique is through radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating is the process of calculating the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 isotopes in any living being. The ratio is used to indicate how long it's been since that being was alive.

    Although, the age of the Earth is merely an approximate statistic based on all available evidence. Of course, we cannot say Earth formed on January 1st, 4,998,725,694 BC. And we also cannot say that the Earth formed 6000 years ago as claimed by literal interpretations of the Bible - there is irrefutable evidence suggesting that the Earth is significantly older than that.

    We have geologic and biological evidence, associated with our more profound understanding of the Solar System to manifest that the Earth is at least a few billion years old.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • The magnetic field proves the earth can't be more the 25,000 years old
  • @calebsica

    That's a common misconception about the magnetic field, in regards to the conclusion that the magnetic field has been continually decaying since creation.

    Copious scientific evidence has debunked the theory of a continually decaying magnetic field. In fact, the magnetic field of the Earth reverses itself, as proven by scientific evidence of both an increase and decrease of field energy on the magnetic field. Therefore, the fluctuation of the magnetic field cannot be used to determine the age of the Earth, since it's a reversible process.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Oppolzer ;

    That is not true, There is no magnetic reversals, there is stronger and weaker magnetism but there is no magnetic reversals
  • @calebsica

    You seem to be unaware of a concept known as "geomagnetic reversal." I would recommend learning more about that before you assert the non-existence of it.

    There is numerous evidence to support geomagnetic reversal. Evidence includes the finding of magnetic rock on both sides of the mid-Atlantic ridge, the magnetic trace found in the area of crustal formation, as well as the fact that iron-based material in rocks will align with the magnetic field when it's free to move, but can become solidified, which locks its alignment into a fixed position.

    The most recent geomagnetic reversal was 780, 000 years ago. Geology has demonstrated that the magnetic field has reversed itself many times in the past, but not within the time that humans have lived. We know that the current magnetic field is becoming weaker, indicating that a reversal is feasible within the next 100,000 years.

    I recommend (at least) reading through these sites to gain a deeper understanding of geomagnetic reversal:

  • calebsica said:
    The earth is not more than 7000 years old. By the way where they got the 4.6 date they dated space rocks
    The 4.6 billion years estimate comes from a very large variety of evidence. Not sure what you mean by "space rocks", and there is no such scientific term, as far as I am aware.

    Not more than 7,000 years old, you say? So it cannot be, say, 7,002 years, but can be 6,999 years? That is an interesting estimate. I assume you have a lot of evidence to support it?
    OppolzerAlofRIPlaffelvohfen
  • calebsica said:
    @Oppolzer ;

    That is not true, There is no magnetic reversals, there is stronger and weaker magnetism but there is no magnetic reversals
    What is the source of magnetism in the first place, in your view? What causes magnetism to appear?

    If you can answer this question, then you can easily see how magnetic reversals are inevitable in virtually any enclosed system over large periods of time, and Earth is no different.
    Oppolzer
  • The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • AlofRIAlofRI 636 Pts
    Somehow, it is easier for some to believe a book of myths that is over 2000 years old, than it is to believe what man has learned IN those 2000 years SINCE.  The "facts" seem to come from the days before there was little to NO scientific thought. Everything after scientific thought seems to be dismissed as "unbelievable". Galileo be damned! Newton was a dummy. Ben Franklin can go fly a kite! The truth is right here in the pages of this ancient book?? The one that attempts to keep us in the dark ages … is the Book of Knowledge?? We have wasted our time in schools and universities for centuries??

    I'm sorry, that is just TOO ridiculous. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @billbatard ;

    The most basic answer might be work on proving it is no younger than 3.6 billion years  and no older than 5.6 billion first.


  • @MayCaesar There is no magnetic reversals. Show me a place where there is a magnetic reversals..
  • calebsicacalebsica 94 Pts
    edited April 2019
    @calebsica All the sources that you posted showed me that first, it is only a hypothesis, and 2nd if you believe it t is a belief. 

    Oppolzer said:
    @calebsica

    You seem to be unaware of a concept known as "geomagnetic reversal." I would recommend learning more about that before you assert the non-existence of it.

    There is numerous evidence to support geomagnetic reversal. Evidence includes the finding of magnetic rock on both sides of the mid-Atlantic ridge, the magnetic trace found in the area of crustal formation, as well as the fact that iron-based material in rocks will align with the magnetic field when it's free to move, but can become solidified, which locks its alignment into a fixed position.

    The most recent geomagnetic reversal was 780, 000 years ago. Geology has demonstrated that the magnetic field has reversed itself many times in the past, but not within the time that humans have lived. We know that the current magnetic field is becoming weaker, indicating that a reversal is feasible within the next 100,000 years.

    I recommend (at least) reading through these sites to gain a deeper understanding of geomagnetic reversal:

    I did read through the articles. 
  • @calebsica

    You have not responded to my question. What, in your view, is the source of magnetism? Where does magnetism comes from? What processes are responsible for it?

    If you answer this question, then I will explain to you why magnetism in an enclosed system is likely to experience periodic reversals, no matter what the system is like.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @MayCaesar ;
    Not having been asked directly.
    You have not responded to my question. What, in your view, is the source of magnetism? Where does magnetism comes from? What processes are responsible for it?

    This is a little odd as I quote my own mathematic understanding made as an additional law of motion. Magnetism is a translation of gravitation to energy as a 5th law of motion. The 4th law describing gravity’s motion in energy source modulation, elasticity, and reverberation.


  • @MayCaesar ;
    Not having been asked directly.
    You have not responded to my question. What, in your view, is the source of magnetism? Where does magnetism comes from? What processes are responsible for it?

    This is a little odd as I quote my own mathematic understanding made as an additional law of motion. Magnetism is a translation of gravitation to energy as a 5th law of motion. The 4th law describing gravity’s motion in energy source modulation, elasticity, and reverberation.



  • Not having been asked directly.
    You have not responded to my question. What, in your view, is the source of magnetism? Where does magnetism comes from? What processes are responsible for it?

    This is a little odd as I quote my own mathematic understanding made as an additional law of motion. Magnetism is a translation of gravitation to energy as a 5th law of motion. The 4th law describing gravity’s motion in energy source modulation, elasticity, and reverberation.


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch