A Calculating Age

[AV1611VET]

The oldest exposed rock on the Earth would be Keith Richards, correct?
But he is only 71 years old?

Still thinking. What about Led Zepplin?

Hold on a minute. This whole matter of the age of the Earth was settled around about the same time that ELVIS (the soon to become King of Rock 'n Roll) recorded with SUN RECORDS.
Good on yer Clair Patterson!

QV please:

-- this thread will be for serious discussion.

Didn't you ask me to vacate the thread when I was answering honestly and to the best of my ability?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Didn't you ask me to vacate the thread when I was answering honestly and to the best of my ability?

I don't recall doing that.
You asked me what the question in my OP was -- I replied. (here)
You said 'I'm not that complicated' - I said, 'Well. You know what to do'
I guess, you didn't get the picture of the girl in an easy chair -- relaxing. (here)

Now if you don't mind, I have some chicks to attend to: (link to follow: here)

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Maybe I'm taking your elementary school class suggestion too literally, but...

Imagine there's a bird called the isoduck that lays eggs. And you're an isoduck farmer, and you have lots of isoducks and lots of isoduck eggs.

You discover that if you have a bunch of isoduck eggs, half of them will hatch into isoduck chicks every hour.

So if you put 16 eggs in a big box, after an hour, there would be 8 eggs and 8 chicks. And after another hour there would be only 4 eggs and 12 chicks. And so on.

One day one of your farmhands shows you a box. Inside it are 3 eggs and 9 chicks. He tells you that he only put eggs into the box, but now there are both eggs and chicks. You tell him, "I know when you put the eggs in the box."

He asks you how you know that. So kids, how do you know?

That's right! You know that half of the eggs hatch every hour. If there are 3 eggs now, that means an hour ago there were six eggs, and that means instead of 9 chicks, there were only 6 chicks and hour ago. And with six eggs and six chicks, obviously one more hour ago, there were 12 eggs. So your farmhand put the eggs into the box two hours ago.

By counting the number of eggs and chicks, you can calculate how long ago the eggs were put in a box.

Now the isoduck is made up. But in real life there are certain atoms that are radioactive. These radioactive atoms, also called isotopes, don't hatch into ducks, but they hatch into different kinds of atoms. For instance, one kind of potassium isotope hatches into an argon isotope.

And they hatch with the same rules as the duck. Only it isn't half of them every hour. It takes 1.3 billion years for half of them to hatch!

But the rules are the same, by counting the number of potassiums and argons, you can calculate how long ago the isotopes were put in a box.

Of course, there aren't any potassium farmers that put potassium isotopes in a box. But there are certain kinds of rocks that have potassium in them. And argon is a gas, so it shouldn't be found in a rock like this. But when we look, we find there are little argon isotopes trapped inside the rock! When the rock was hot and molten, the argon would all bubble away like steam escaping. So when the rock cools and gets hard, there's no argon inside. So all the argon that we see today came from the potassium isotopes hatching.

By counting the number of potassium and argon isotopes, you can calculate how long ago the rock cooled down and became solid.

And when we do that, we find that the oldest rocks on earth we find are more than 4 billion years old.

Believe it or not, they'd probably understand you perfectly -- but I kept on thinking about chicks -- Beavis and Butthead an I.
Thanks for the effort, I think I'm beginning to get it.
It's exactly what I was reading about.
So this RADIOMETRIC DATING.
Nice.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now if you don't mind, I have some chicks to attend to: (link to follow:

Which brings up a second point.

Didn't you say this in your OP?

No links, no quotes, only simple explanations by you.

You even underlined it.

I have a feeling there's more to why this thread was started than meets the eye.

If I'm wrong, then perhaps you can tell me what you have learned from the responses?

You asked for each one of us to respond with our own favorite method of calculating the age of the earth.

As of this post, Freodin has three replies -- what is Freodin's favorite method of calculating the age of the earth?

As of this post, whois has two replies -- what is whois' favorite method of calculating the age of the earth?

As of this post, essentialsaltes has two replies -- what is essentialsaltes' favorite method of calculating the age of the earth?

As of this post, Juvenissun has one reply -- what is Juvenissun's favorite method of calculating the age of the earth?

What exactly have you learned?

Or are you just providing us with your brand of "entertainment value" that you conveniently mentioned in your own OP?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

<edit>

Several radiometric dating methods involve half-lives in the billions of years. They give consistent answers that the objects in the solar system (including the earth) are 4.5 billion years old.

What's the deal with people like say the well known Dr. Neil Tyson-DeGrasse and Co. (astrophysicists) who do this in a slightly different way -- something about the PULSATING STARS?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Which brings up a second point.

Didn't you say this in your OP?

You even underlined it.

Links to websites, Charlie.

 

[AV1611VET]

Links to websites, Charlie.

And yours aren't, Joe?

It's just this sort of stuff that contributed to the demise of General Apologetics back in 2007.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

And yours aren't, Joe?

Correct, Charlie.

 

[AV1611VET]

Correct, Charlie.

Well, for the record, I don't see you pushing too hard for answers to your OP.

Essentialsaltes has, in my opinion, respected your OP -- albeit he didn't say if it was his favorite or not.

Then all of a sudden, you start waxing comical in a thread you started for serious replies with simple ways of explaining them.

But hey, if you don't care, I don't care either.

 

[whois]

Maybe I'm taking your elementary school class suggestion too literally, but...

Imagine there's a bird called the isoduck that lays eggs. And you're an isoduck farmer, and you have lots of isoducks and lots of isoduck eggs.

You discover that if you have a bunch of isoduck eggs, half of them will hatch into isoduck chicks every hour.

So if you put 16 eggs in a big box, after an hour, there would be 8 eggs and 8 chicks. And after another hour there would be only 4 eggs and 12 chicks. And so on.

One day one of your farmhands shows you a box. Inside it are 3 eggs and 9 chicks. He tells you that he only put eggs into the box, but now there are both eggs and chicks. You tell him, "I know when you put the eggs in the box."

He asks you how you know that. So kids, how do you know?

That's right! You know that half of the eggs hatch every hour. If there are 3 eggs now, that means an hour ago there were six eggs, and that means instead of 9 chicks, there were only 6 chicks and hour ago. And with six eggs and six chicks, obviously one more hour ago, there were 12 eggs. So your farmhand put the eggs into the box two hours ago.

By counting the number of eggs and chicks, you can calculate how long ago the eggs were put in a box.

Now the isoduck is made up. But in real life there are certain atoms that are radioactive. These radioactive atoms, also called isotopes, don't hatch into ducks, but they hatch into different kinds of atoms. For instance, one kind of potassium isotope hatches into an argon isotope.

And they hatch with the same rules as the duck. Only it isn't half of them every hour. It takes 1.3 billion years for half of them to hatch!

But the rules are the same, by counting the number of potassiums and argons, you can calculate how long ago the isotopes were put in a box.

Of course, there aren't any potassium farmers that put potassium isotopes in a box. But there are certain kinds of rocks that have potassium in them. And argon is a gas, so it shouldn't be found in a rock like this. But when we look, we find there are little argon isotopes trapped inside the rock! When the rock was hot and molten, the argon would all bubble away like steam escaping. So when the rock cools and gets hard, there's no argon inside. So all the argon that we see today came from the potassium isotopes hatching.

By counting the number of potassium and argon isotopes, you can calculate how long ago the rock cooled down and became solid.

And when we do that, we find that the oldest rocks on earth we find are more than 4 billion years old.

now that was a darned good explanation.
but . . . (wouldn't you know it)
the above only applies if the box always remains locked.
IOW you don't know if other isoducks has been snuck into the box.
in the real world this is known as leeching and cannot be stopped.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Then all of a sudden, you start waxing comical in a thread you started for serious replies with simple ways of explaining them.

I think my comments were awesome!

Keith Richard - step one in determining the age of the earth: search for and date the oldest exposed rocks on the Earth. (16)
Led Zepplin - an elegant model for the evolution of lead isotopes. (18)
and Elvis Presley -- for Clair Patterson and he both made major discoveries in 1953 - well, Elvis was discovered @ Sun Records (19)

Forgive me for a having a little fun -- but you go on right ahead and do what you always do. You know, necro-threads. Good luck with that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

now that was a darned good explanation.
but . . . (wouldn't you know it)
the above only applies if the box always remains locked.
IOW you don't know if other isoducks has been snuck into the box.
in the real world this is known as leeching and cannot be stopped.

I imagine the most likely thing is that argon would leach out of rocks, and make rocks look younger than they actually are.

But in any case, this and many other methods have been used on many different samples. If leaching is causing all sorts of problems, why do these different methods involving different elements all yield the same answer for the maximum rock age? Why do they cluster around 4.5 billion years ago as the maximal age or earth rocks? Meteorites are in space, nothing can leach into them. Why do they also consistently give that same age of 4.5 billion years?

Is it all a coincidence that multiple faulty methods give the same result? It is just not plausible.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What's the deal with people like say the well known Dr. Neil Tyson-DeGrasse and Co. (astrophysicists) who do this in a slightly different way -- something about the PULSATING STARS?

Your original question, when finally provided, was: "Question: Please explain how you would calculate the age of the Earth?" [my emphasis]

I'm not sure pulsars can do that.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Your original question, when finally provided, was: "Question: Please explain how you would calculate the age of the Earth?" [my emphasis]

I'm not sure pulsars can do that.

My bad. My imagination is running away with me. It's such an interesting topic. I shall endeavor to stay focused.

I'm not sure either, but then I've only recently read of Henrietta Leavitt's discovery in 1908 -- and something called 'period-luminosity relation'

 

[AV1611VET]

Forgive me for a having a little fun --

I'll say this again (but I'm getting tired of hearing myself whine about it):

You set the rules in your OP; viz., be serious and no links.

Then you not only violate your own rules, but don't seem to care about others who aren't answering your OP.

(Except when I posted, of course.)

But as I said, I'm getting tired of hearing myself whine about it.

It's your thread, not mine.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm not sure either, but then I've only recently read of Henrietta Leavitt's discovery in 1908 -- and something called 'period-luminosity relation'

Aha, that is for variable stars. This is one of the great ways of calculating astronomical distances.

[And since it takes light time to travel those astronomical distances, it can tell us something about how long ago the light we see now took to travel from the star to us. But again this does not tell us anything about the earth's age. But it would set some lower bounds for the age of the variable stars we see, and consequently the age the universe that contains those stars.]

 

[AV1611VET]

Lewis, all joking aside, I want to thank you for giving these guys a chance to talk about their favorite method of calculating the age of the earth, as well as a chance to explain it in such a way as a child could understand it.

You would think people here would be falling over themselves to present their methods of choice; but as it turns out ...

 

[whois]

I imagine the most likely thing is that argon would leach out of rocks, and make rocks look younger than they actually are.

But in any case, this and many other methods have been used on many different samples. If leaching is causing all sorts of problems, why do these different methods involving different elements all yield the same answer for the maximum rock age? Why do they cluster around 4.5 billion years ago as the maximal age or earth rocks? Meteorites are in space, nothing can leach into them. Why do they also consistently give that same age of 4.5 billion years?

Is it all a coincidence that multiple faulty methods give the same result? It is just not plausible.

i've run across an excellent treatise on radiometric dating.
not quite fit for a 5 year old, but:
naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/radiometricdating.html#Assumptions

 

[Oncedeceived]

I agree that the entertainment factor of certain posters (myself included) is part of the reason why some people read this forum, however as we are here to discuss Creation and Evolution -- this thread will be for serious discussion. ( my question is below this amazing photograph )

Apparently the age of our earth can be calculated in a number of very complicated ways.

NB: No links, no quotes, only simple explanations by you.

Please use simple words, simple enough for an elementary school class to get a proper handle on the data.

Thanks in advance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjxSCAalsBE

 

[bhsmte]

Sean Pitman - EvoWiki