Earth 3.5 billion years old?

[13 others]

Is that how old some scientists roughly estimate the earth to be?

That's crazy. How could that even be accurate, that's according to our best guess to the standards of what we know today. The earth could have been around for an immeasurable amount of time that we simply can't even fathom. Even if it is only 3.5 billion years old that means there could have potentially been 35 million centuries of civilisation (100 years in a century).

Thats such an absurd amount of time that any civilisation thats 10x more advanced than us could have inhabited earth and been wiped off this earth by an undocumented event at some point in time. Sky is the limit when it comes to possibilities of some other being inhabiting earth long before us who were able to build all these incredible structures found throughout the world that baffle experts today.


Just to give you roughly what 1 billion years would look like physically then times that by 3.5


Thats alot of years.

 

[Horse Style]

3.5 billion? Wait, which page in the Bible does it say that??

 

[Midnighter]

3.5 billion? Wait, which page in the Bible does it say that??

Page 3.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

No, the Earth is 6000 years old.

















And it is flat.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

It’s actually 4.6 billion, isn’t it?

 

[MassDistortion]

Interesting. It's hard to fathom some of the numbers experts put out there. The fartherst recorded Galaxy from ours is 13.3 billion light years away. One light year is 4.9 trillion miles in distance. 4.9 trillion x 13.3 billion.

 

[Jopious Extronimous]

Gotta be hard coming up with birthday gifts for the 3rd billionth time.

"Here earth, we got you.... Donald Trump as president... wait... yeah no that's what we've got. Sorry but we're really running out of ideas here and we all agreed you wouldn't like another moon."

 

[13 others]

It’s actually 4.6 billion, isn’t it?

I don't know man, you tell me.

 

[ralphc1]

Maybe there was a civilization before the collision that formed the moon 4.5 Billion years ago. I doubt it because the Sun is only 4.6 billion years old.

 

[ralphc1]

It’s actually 4.6 billion, isn’t it?

4.54 billion

 

[Henry Swanson]

It’s actually 4.6 billion, isn’t it?

4.6 billion is the new 3.5 billion.

 

[Phr3121]

How could that even be accurate.

Scientific measurements. How do you think scientists arrived at the numbers listed below?

The right number is 4.543 billion years old. Not sure why that is such a big deal.

. Speed of light: 299,792,458 meters per second
. Speed of a nuclear chain reaction in an Atom bomb: 1/1,000,000 of a second
. Largest U.S. Hydrogen bomb yield - Castle Bravo: 15 megatons
. Hiroshima Atom bomb yield: 15 kilotons

 

[TribalDrumz]

Lol at aliens

 

[13 others]

Scientific measurements. How do you think scientists arrived at the numbers listed below?

The right number is 4.543 billion years old. Not sure why that is such a big deal.

. Speed of light: 299,792,458 meters per second
. Speed of a nuclear chain reaction in an Atom bomb: 1/1,000,000 of a second
. Largest U.S. Hydrogen bomb yield - Castle Bravo: 15 megatons
. Hiroshima Atom bomb yield: 15 kilotons

A scientific measurment to give us the exact date of the earth? Ahah, okay?

Speed of light is fundamentally measurable, and so is the speed of a nuclear chain reaction in an atom bomb.

The age of the earth is a best guess to the limits of our knowledge.

 

[Ken Fresno]

I can't wrap my head around it. Jesus, take the wheel.

 

[Peteyandjia]

3.5 billion years old

I believe the technical scientific term is:

"bout tree fiddy"

 

[Eazy123]

It's over 9,000 for sure

 

[Phr3121]

Speed of light is fundamentally measurable, and so is the speed of a nuclear chain reaction in an atom bomb. The age of the earth is a best guess to the limits of our knowledge.

You must be new to this. Dating the Earth is much easier than measuring the speed of light or a nuclear chain reaction. One is stationary and can be analyzed through Carbon-14 dating and other sources. The other is moving at very fast speeds. How exactly was a nuclear chain reaction observed in a laboratory in 1942? How did scientists know to use U235? Were they able to see an atom?

 

[SheetsMMAfan]

Science. If you can't disprove it, it's accurate.
Bible. If you can't disprove it, it's accurate.
God. If you can't disprove him/her, he/she exists.
UFO's. If you can't disprove them, they exists.

Seeing a trend?

We like to THINK we know stuff, and their are a TON of scientists out there making a living off guessing shit, but who the fuck ACTUALLY knows?

Carbon dating? Seems legit. They can say something is 6 billion years old, but that's assuming that things reacted the same 6 billion years ago. What if the earth was a desolate wasteland with gasses/elements we never knew or discovered contaminating everything? Carbon dating assumes that carbon 14 and other carbon rates have always been the same. How do we know that? If we had a LEGIT 6 billion year old artifact that we KNEW the exact age of for comparison, I would be all for it.

Carbon Dating is just a very well thought out guess based on what humans could get their hands on in the last hundreds to possibly thousands of years. Sure, the principle could copy/paste itself to find out that something is 6 billion years old, but I call bullshit.

Edit: I see I will be torn apart in this thread, which is fine. We all have opinions.

 

[KILL KILL]

A scientific measurment to give us the exact date of the earth? Ahah, okay?

Speed of light is fundamentally measurable, and so is the speed of a nuclear chain reaction in an atom bomb.

The age of the earth is a best guess to the limits of our knowledge.

Google radiometric dating.