Where does the number 4.5 billion come from?

[australopithecus]

I thought you'd say that. So that's so interesting that even though his work was discredited, he magically got the number EXACTLY right.

Discrediting doesn't equal 'he got it wrong'. His conclusion might have been correct but his methods might have been disputed. regardless, for all this dancing around the fact remains, there is NO evidence that Patterson's work was discredited.

I'll need some help to understand the link you sent, but the link seems to credit Patterson with the 4.5 billion number and the other research comes up with lesser numbers.

Again, I have to ask. With what knowledge are you judging the evidence to be correct or not?

 

[australopithecus]

http://www.nature.com/nature-physci/journal/v240/n99/pdf/physci240056a0.pdf

Found it.

I can't find the content of the article above, but those are the scientists that disproved Patterson's work. Does anyone have that magazine?

They showed that Patterson's beliefs about where the lead in meteorites came from was provably wrong. They showed that there was too much lead in meteorites to claim that it formed from uranium. Much of the lead had originally been in the meteorite.

Thoughts?

And you haven't read the article, so again, on what basis are you making these claims? You've read the abstract, claiming to know what the paper states is dishonest.

 

[Inferno]

This would be so much easier to do if anyone actually had access to the paper...

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Discrediting doesn't equal 'he got it wrong'. His conclusion might have been correct but his methods might have been disputed. regardless, for all this dancing around the fact remains, there is NO evidence that Patterson's work was discredited.

You seem to be changing your story. Earlier, you said:

If Patterson's work was discredited then fine, however you need to understand that the figure of 4.5 isn't based on Pattersons work, but the work of many fields which all independently validate each other.

From what I've seen (which is limited), the number 4.5 billion comes only from Patterson. Other numbers from other fields are millions or a billion years off. Can you link to a scientific method completely unrelated to Patterson that came to the conclusion of 4.5 billion years? If not, maybe the earth is only 3.8 billion years old like other studies have shown.

I'm still a bit confused at your above statement that Patterson's conclusion might have been correct, but not his methods. How does that work? Until someone can get the text of the Nature article, we can't say for certain he wasn't proven wrong. I think you all should at least be thankful for the fact that I've brought something to your attention that you didn't previously know. Maybe the number 4.5 billion needs to be changed and League of Reason will get the credit!

Again, I have to ask. With what knowledge are you judging the evidence to be correct or not?

As of yet, I haven't read the article. It was told to me by degreed scientists who believe in YEC and are my mentors. Right now I believe them and I'm asking others to see if they're right.

 

[Inferno]

Maybe the number 4.5 billion needs to be changed and League of Reason will get the credit!

I highly doubt that. Many people have already made you aware of the fact that new methods confirm the 4.5 billion (actually 4.55 billion, +- only 50 million years) so it'd really need an overthrowing of... well, everything we know about science. Good luck with that.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

I highly doubt that. Many people have already made you aware of the fact that new methods confirm the 4.5 billion (actually 4.55 billion, +- only 50 million years) so it'd really need an overthrowing of... well, everything we know about science. Good luck with that.

What new methods?

 

[australopithecus]

From what I've seen (which is limited), the number 4.5 billion comes only from Patterson.

The original figure did indeed come from Patterson, however this figure has been subsequently validated by other dating methods. If you think that ideas just "stick around" then you have no idea how science works. Other more modern dating methods have dated the Earth to a similar age with an error margin of 1% (45 million years).

The point you seem to be missing is that the paper you cited as the one 'discrediting' Patterson is no such thing. Just from the abstract it's evident the article is questioning the methods based on the composition of the meteorites he tested. You and I both have not read the article, the difference is you're the only one seeming making claims about it's content and conclusion. And that you admitted you don't have knowledge in this field makes it more dishonest of you to assert anything.

I'm still a bit confused at your above statement that Patterson's conclusion might have been correct, but not his methods.

If I told you the sky is blue, but told you arrived at that conclusion because a unicorn told me, would that make my conclusion wrong? No, it wouldn't. Science is a strict buisness, and unless your methods are watertight you can be as right as you like, it will still get called on.

Maybe the number 4.5 billion needs to be changed and League of Reason will get the credit!

You're forgetting, almost wilfully it seems, about all the other methods that arrive independently at around the same figure of 4.5.

 

[australopithecus]

I highly doubt that. Many people have already made you aware of the fact that new methods confirm the 4.5 billion (actually 4.55 billion, +- only 50 million years) so it'd really need an overthrowing of... well, everything we know about science. Good luck with that.

What new methods?

Helioseismic methods.

Bonanno, A.; Schlattl, H.; Paternà², L. (August 2002). "The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS". Astronomy and Astrophysics 390 (3): 1115-1118.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Helioseismic methods.

Bonanno, A.; Schlattl, H.; Paternà², L. (August 2002). "The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS". Astronomy and Astrophysics 390 (3): 1115-1118.

Great. Do you have a link by chance that shows helioseismic methods being used to calculate the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years old?

 

[Inferno]

What new methods?

Well for one, radiometric dating of rocks that are on earth. They alone establish a lower boundary of 4.2 billion years, with other minerals being dated at 4.404 billion years.

Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago.
Zircons Are Forever (Note: Important bit can be found here: "the world's oldest known zircons from Australia (>4.3 Ga, Peck, Wilde and Valley, unpbd)", Ga meaning billion years ago.)

Old methods were also revised and now return a statistical error of less than 0.0001 billion years!

EDIT: For the helioseismic paper, click this link, on the top right you can access either the PDF, TXT or HTML.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think it would prove if the earth were not 4.5 billion years old? I mean, we know from a hundred other methods that the Earth is at least billions of years old.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Well for one, radiometric dating of rocks that are on earth. They alone establish a lower boundary of 4.2 billion years, with other minerals being dated at 4.404 billion years.

Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago.
Zircons Are Forever (Note: Important bit can be found here: "the world's oldest known zircons from Australia (>4.3 Ga, Peck, Wilde and Valley, unpbd)", Ga meaning billion years ago.)

Old methods were also revised and now return a statistical error of less than 0.0001 billion years!

EDIT: For the helioseismic paper, click this link, on the top right you can access either the PDF, TXT or HTML.

Thanks. That stuff is way over my head. Radiometric dating of a rock to 4.2 billion years would be a difference of 350 million years from Patterson's number. That's a long time! That doesn't fall into a 1% margin of error by a longshot. I can see how someone may think that number helps corroborate Patterson's work, but I really want to know why everyone uses the 4.5 billion number, including Wikipedia. Where did that come from and why does everyone use it? If everyone used a range, like 3-5 billion years, we wouldn't be having this conversation, you know?

I'm DYING to read that Nature article from the 70s. I don't think I was lied to. They read it and they said specifically on page 57 is where Patterson is refuted.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I'm relatively new to science and I'm a YEC. Some mentors of mine have explained to me that the age of the earth held by practically everyone, came from bad science. They said that number has absolutely no evidence and was actually concocted by an evolutionary scientist by the name of Patterson in 1955. The number 4.5 billion came from his beliefs about where the lead in meteorites came from.

But in 1972 research by a scientist named Gale disproved Patterson's work. And of course the number stuck and is still a widespread held belief by evolutionists today.

Is this true?

After reading the abstract of Gale et al. (1972), it does not seem to talk about how they overturned earlier findings of the age of the earth. That would be something they should have included in their abstract. Now, there could be something in the actual article, itself, but I guess we will have to wait to see if someone with a subscription to Nature can tell us (I miss my college access ).

However, perusing Wikipedia's article Age of the Earth, it states this:

The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ,± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

It further goes on to say this in the next paragraph:

Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions rich in calcium and aluminium), the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system, are 4.567 billion years old,[8][9] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth.

Thus, what we have here are different dating methods all collaborating to support one age. Even if you are correct, and the findings of Patterson are incorrect (for whatever reason), it seems the age of the earth is based on many other pieces of evidence.

I suggest taking a break from reading creationist material and taking a few days to peruse Wikipedia yourself. I guaranty you will learn more from it than any of the creationist material you have.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think it would prove if the earth were not 4.5 billion years old? I mean, we know from a hundred other methods that the Earth is at least billions of years old.

I simply think it would be interesting that everyone throws out a number that isn't true and believed it by faith and not evidence. Like I said above, if everyone said the earth was 3-5 billion years old, I would have never started the thread. But everyone is pretty stuck on this 4.5 billion number and I want to get to the bottom of it. (4.55 billion to be exact!)

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

After reading the abstract of Gale et al. (1972), it does not seem to talk about how they overturned earlier findings of the age of the earth. That would be something they should have included in their abstract. Now, there could be something in the actual article, itself, but I guess we will have to wait to see if someone with a subscription to Nature can tell us (I miss my college access ).

However, perusing Wikipedia's article Age of the Earth, it states this:

The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ,± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Yes, Wikipedia's claim that the age comes from dating meteorite material would be Patterson, no?

It further goes on to say this in the next paragraph:

Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions rich in calcium and aluminium), the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system, are 4.567 billion years old,[8][9] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth.

Thus, what we have here are different dating methods all collaborating to support one age. Even if you are correct, and the findings of Patterson are incorrect (for whatever reason), it seems the age of the earth is based on many other pieces of evidence.

I suggest taking a break from reading creationist material and taking a few days to peruse Wikipedia yourself. I guaranty you will learn more from it than any of the creationist material you have.

But the creationist material is so good!

 

[Inferno]

Thanks. That stuff is way over my head. Radiometric dating of a rock to 4.2 billion years would be a difference of 350 million years from Patterson's number. That's a long time! That doesn't fall into a 1% margin of error by a longshot. I can see how someone may think that number helps corroborate Patterson's work, but I really want to know why everyone uses the 4.5 billion number, including Wikipedia. Where did that come from and why does everyone use it? If everyone used a range, like 3-5 billion years, we wouldn't be having this conversation, you know?

I'm DYING to read that Nature article from the 70s. I don't think I was lied to. They read it and they said specifically on page 57 is where Patterson is refuted.

No problem. However, you're making a mistake here! Remember that I said "lower boundary" when talking about the 4.2 billion years figure. First of all, what do I mean by "lower boundary"? Well think of it this way: You're trying to measure someone's height by making them walk underneath a plank that is fixed at a specific height. For example, you let me walk under a plank that is fixed at 1.60m. I will bang my nose and you will know that I am AT LEAST 1.60m tall, thus setting a lower limit for my height at 1.60m. (This is the 4.2 billion years!) This does not tell us anything about my actual height. (The 4.55 billion years.) Now we can either get ever closer by setting the bar higher and higher, (by finding older and older rocks) but this might not be possible. (Because we can't find such rocks, because such rocks do not exist, etc.) Or we might take a measuring tape and find out that I am actually 1.87m. (This is where the number 4.55billion years comes from.)

I hope I've made this easy enough to understand. 4.2 billion years is not an exact figure for the age of the earth, it's a lower limit.

Incidentally, what would happen if we'd actually said 3-5 billion years? What would that change? Your YEC friends would still be wrong that the earth is young.

But the creationist material is so good!

There is a difference between "easy to access yet wrong" and "difficult to access yet correct". Which of the two is good? By your standards, the first.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Well for one, radiometric dating of rocks that are on earth. They alone establish a lower boundary of 4.2 billion years, with other minerals being dated at 4.404 billion years.

Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago.
Zircons Are Forever (Note: Important bit can be found here: "the world's oldest known zircons from Australia (>4.3 Ga, Peck, Wilde and Valley, unpbd)", Ga meaning billion years ago.)

Old methods were also revised and now return a statistical error of less than 0.0001 billion years!

EDIT: For the helioseismic paper, click this link, on the top right you can access either the PDF, TXT or HTML.

Thanks. That stuff is way over my head. Radiometric dating of a rock to 4.2 billion years would be a difference of 350 million years from Patterson's number. That's a long time! That doesn't fall into a 1% margin of error by a longshot. I can see how someone may think that number helps corroborate Patterson's work, but I really want to know why everyone uses the 4.5 billion number, including Wikipedia. Where did that come from and why does everyone use it? If everyone used a range, like 3-5 billion years, we wouldn't be having this conversation, you know?

I'm DYING to read that Nature article from the 70s. I don't think I was lied to. They read it and they said specifically on page 57 is where Patterson is refuted.

That age comes from rocks on earth. We know the earth is constantly reforming itself, thus it would be incredible to have a rock formation from the beginning of the earth. It seems that the constant flux of the earth has reformed all the original rocks into new(er) ones. 4.4 gyo is the oldest we have ever found on earth. That is why these methods are used on rocks from other places (i.e. the moon and meteorites). They did not go through the same geological processes that the earth has gone through, they are more stable.

Therefore, with the discovery of the 4.4 gyo Zircons we can conclude that the earth itself is at least 4.4 gya and not a day younger. However, older ages from extra solar bodies that give an older age moves our ideas back further. This is based on our understanding of the formation of the solar system. We do not think a planet can just form 1 billions years after the rest of the solar system.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think it would prove if the earth were not 4.5 billion years old? I mean, we know from a hundred other methods that the Earth is at least billions of years old.

I simply think it would be interesting that everyone throws out a number that isn't true and believed it by faith and not evidence. Like I said above, if everyone said the earth was 3-5 billion years old, I would have never started the thread. But everyone is pretty stuck on this 4.5 billion number and I want to get to the bottom of it. (4.55 billion to be exact!)

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what faith is. A lot of people believe as fact that dogs can't look up, but I don't think anyone has faith that dogs can't look up. These people are not dogmatic, they're simply wrong.

I find it interesting how YECs often equivocate science with religious terms like this. It's as though they know how weak an argument faith actually is.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Yes, Wikipedia's claim that the age comes from dating meteorite material would be Patterson, no?

No, as you can see from my second quote from Wikipedia, which is why I included it.

It further goes on to say this in the next paragraph:

Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions rich in calcium and aluminium), the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system, are 4.567 billion years old,[8][9] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth.

That age came about from Ca-Al dating, not U-Pb dating.

But the creationist material is so good!

Obviously not if you cannot see this basic error.

Furthermore, what creationist material has ever collaborated anything from any other creationist?

 

[Inferno]

That age came about from Ca-Al dating, not U-Pb dating.

I'm not very knowledgeable about this subject so correct me if I'm wrong, but I am not familiar with Ca-Al dating. I think you got a wrong idea when you read "Ca-Al-rich inclusions" on Wikipedia.

Now just to be clear, the only Calcium isotope that has a long enough half life is Ca-48, but that half-life is long enough that "for all practical purposes it can be considered stable". All other isotopes have a half-life of mere seconds at most, only one has a half-life of over a hundred thousand years. None of these is suitable for radiometric dating. However, even if we consider that there might be one that has a suitable half-life (only Ca-48 remains), it immediately stops at Se-76 after double-beta decay. During no point does an isotope of Calcium with a long enough half-life to consider it for dating actually decay into aluminium.

So that being said, what are these Ca-Al-rich inclusions we're talking about and how can they be measured? They are inclusions in the actual meteor, so both elements are available in their stable form. It's the atoms of lead (Pb) inside them that are dated.

Paper 1[/url]"]The lead-lead isochron age of chondrules in the CR chondrite Acfer 059 is 4564.7 +/- 0.6 million years ago (Ma), whereas the lead isotopic age of calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions (CAIs) in the CV chondrite Efremovka is 4567.2 +/- 0.6 Ma.

However, you're still correct that they can be dated differently, though not by this invented Ca-Al method.

Looking at either Paper 2 or the Wikipedia page, we can see that the alternative ways are either Magnesium-Chromium or Magnesium-Aluminium dating.

So since I'm a complete and utter n00b at this: Am I correct or not?