What will the world be like in 4.6 billion years based on how the plates move?
It would not be here according to science the sun will is come a red giant and overcome the earth and destroy it.
5 people found this useful
The early Earth was a toxic wasteland devoid of all life. After the crust cooled and began to solidify, volcanoes spewed poison gases, methane and ammonia into the atmosphere. As water vapor began to collect from Earth's interior and from space, weather started. Thunderstorms began to fire up and bo…iling hot, highly acidic rain began to fall for millions of years. During this time the water collected in the low areas and formed the early oceans. Lightning started a series of chemical reactions converting Ammonia (NH 4 ) into Nitrogen and Methane (CH 4 ) into CO 2 when combined with water. Most of the Hydrogen drifted off into space. About 3.5 billion years ago, life arose as single celled plant life called algae. This blue-green algae began to use CO 2 from the atmosphere for photosynthesis and released copious amounts of O 2 leading to our modern atmosphere. (MORE)
Answer . the earth had just been formed by gravity and thus the surface was still not complete. it was basically kinda like our sister planet venus in that it was mostly lava. it took a while to cool and when it did, water was able to condense and over time oceans were built around a single land …mass known as pangea. i hope that about sums up a lot of info into a tiny undetailed package. (MORE)
This question is about the age of the universe and the age of theearth, so any must address both issues and provide supportingevidence for the age of both. Moreover, although scientificestimates are constantly being revised, the real issue is notwhether the estimates are marginally wrong, but whethe…r they aredramatically wrong. Young Earth creationists insist that the earthis only a few thousand years old. Present estimates put the age of the earth at 4.54 billion years,plus or minus 45 million. The oldest things so far found on earthare zircon crystals in Western Australia - these are more than 4billion years old. The preponderance of evidence points to theseages. They have been measured in various different ways, and theyall tend to point towards the same age range. This information isalways open to challenge as new knowledge comes to light, butclearly the true figure is close to 4.54 billion years. Creationists usually ignore other scientific dating methods andfocus on attacking only radiation dating, by speculating that ratesof decay of radioisotopes may have changed most dramatically in therecent past. The reason for this assertion is the need to claimthat the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, if allrocks are exactly the same age - 6,000 years - why do differentrocks in the geological column provide different ages viaradioisotope dating, with the youngest rocks in any localityconsistently at the top of the column? Some creationists speculatethat the rates of decay of radioisotopes changed so dramaticallydue to some catastrophe, such as the biblical Flood. However, moonrocks have also been found to be just over 4 billion years old, andthey would be entirely unaffected by any Earth-bound flood. Present estimates put the age of the universe at 13.7 billionyears. Light from the nearest star to our sun takes 4 years to gethere, but light from distant galaxies takes millions of years toget here. For radiation to reach Earth from the most distantdiscernible sources in only the last few thousand years, the speedof light must have been millions of times higher than it is now,with a sudden and most dramatic fall in its speed everywhere in theuniverse, in the last few thousand years. Like the creationistclaim that radiation decay rates changed dramatically only a fewthousand years ago, this is just too improbable to be takenseriously. Another answer from our community: Alternate If you believe in current scientific cosmology the wouldbe yes, as above. If you believe in Creation the would be no. Quitea lot of verifiable and repeatable scientific data points to theearth being much younger than suggested by current science. Some believe that there is no way to reliably check these agessince we cannot go back and test the early earth and repeat itsbeginning. In any case dating methods, such as those involvingradioactive decay such as uranium to lead or potassium to argoninvolve three unprovable assumptions and so may not be at allcorrect. It is known that they fail when testing rocks of known agedue to contamination. Notes: People will often refer to thisgeneral debate as being between Creation and Evolution. It isimportant to know that evolution is a relatively recent process in cosmological time . Evolution is not the fundamentalscience that has led to the theories of the origins of theuniverse . Proponents of creation/intelligent design areinterested in at least these two areas of scientific theory:origins of the universe, usually called 'cosmology' and usuallyassociated with astronomy and sometimes physics; and the origins ofdifferent species, currently called evolution and usuallyconsidered part of biology. Evolution does not address issues ofthe origins of life itself, another question of biology that isimportant for creationists. Credible scientific evidence suggesting that the earth and universeare considerably younger than the scientific estimates should becarefully examined. Generally people holding to younger ages arebasing their interpretations on scriptural accounts that suggest ayounger world, and they assume that the accounts are authoritative.Other scientists start with a different set of assumptions,develop sometimes brilliant strategies to test them out, they makemeasurements, share their data and the material is available forothers to verify, refute or re-interpret. People coming fromfaith-based positions tend to hold a more dogmatic view,essentially by definition, although many from an allegedlyscientific perspective hold their position no less dogmatically.Their opinion is not discovered or uncovered, but revealed. Scienceis a process, and scientists should be cautious about putting toomuch weight on current beliefs until they have withstood the testof time-- lots and lots of time. No. It's not true and even evolutionists question the dates and thedating methods. They are not absolute and proven as evolutionary believers so oftenstate. 'The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billionyears, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such"confirmation" may be short-lived as nature is not to be discoveredquite so easily. There has been in recent years the horriblerealization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previouslythought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during someglobal disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a closemay not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age andmemory of man.' Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC, ' Secular catastrophism '. Industrial Research and Development , June 1982, p.21. 'All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its variousstrata, and its fossils are questionable because the rates arelikely to have fluctuated widely over earth history. A method thatappears to have much greater reliability for determining absoluteages of rocks is that of radiometric dating.'.... 'It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolutedating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on agiven geological stratum by different radiometric methods are oftenquite different(sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). Thereis no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". Theuncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing togeologists and evolutionists....". William D. Stansfield, Ph.D.(animal breeding)(Instructor ofBiology, California Polytechnic State University)in The Scienceof Evolution , Macmillan, New York, 1977,pp.82 and 84. 'In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common todiscard ages which are substantially too high or to low comparedwith the rest of the group or with other available data such as thegeologic time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and theaccepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon. ' A. Hayatsu(Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario,Canada), ' K-Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, NovaScotia '. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16,1979,p.974. 'Thus, if one believes that the derived ages in particularinstances are in gross disagreement with established facts of fieldgeology, he must conjure up geological processes that could causeanomalous or altered argon contents of the minerals.' Prof. J. F. Evernden (Department of Geology, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, USA) and Dr. John R. Richards (ResearchSchool of Earth Sciences, Australian National University,Canberra),'Potassium-argon ages in eastern Australia'. Journal ofthe Geological Society of Australia, vol. 9(1), 1962,p.3. Regarding the rubidium/strontium (Rb/Sr) method: 'These results indicate that even total-rock systems may be openduring metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed,making it impossible to determine their geologic age.' Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus, USA) and Prof. James L. Powell (Department ofGeology,Oberlin College,Ohio, USA) in Strontium IsotopeGeology , Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972, p.102. 'One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model is thatcrystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Srwhole rock technique can be greater than the true age by manyhundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age ismore serious for younger rocks, and there are well-documentedinstances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age inthe literature.' Dr. C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal,Quebec, Canada), Dr. D. E. James (Staff Member in geophysics andgeochemistry, Carnegie Institution of Washington D.C., USA) and Dr.S. R. Hart (Professor of Geochemistry, Department of Earth andPlanetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Cambridge,USA), 'Ancient lithosphere: its role in youngcontinental vulcanism'. Science ,vol. 193, 17 September1976, p.1093. (MORE)
Almost like today, but there was only 1 united continent. Those separated later due to an event that happened (not going to speak about that). this answer is SO wrong the continent they are referring to is called Pangaea and Pangaea was formed not until the late Paleozoic period which was only 248 m…illion years ago NOT 4.6 BILLION years ago i don't know the answer to your question but i can tell you there answer is defiantly not it(maybe you shouldn't speak about anything.) (MORE)
To find 15 percent of a number, multiply the number by 0.15. In this instance, 0.15 x 4,600,000,000 = 690,000,000
A: Scientists do not set out to prove the Bible wrong. That has happened simply as a because scientists found out more about the world and began to realise the Bible is indeed wrong on this point. Answer : There is no specific statement of the age of this planet in Scripture. It is simp…ly inferred by those reading certain passages. Today, there is renewed discussion which began nearly 2000 years ago of a time 'gap' between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This is simply called the 'Gap Theory' of the Genesis Creation account and is centered around the translation of the Hebrew 'hayah' as 'became' and not was as is common in many translations. Genesis 1:1-2 New King James Version (NKJV) The History of Creation 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was [a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.. Footnotes: . Genesis 1:2 Words in italic type have been added for clarity. They are not found in the original Hebrew or Aramaic. . (MORE)
The Earth Orbits the sun, and the sun revolves around the center of of the galaxy at 250 km/s. At this speed it completes one revolution about every 200 million years. Therfore the earht has made about 23 revolutions around the center of the galaxy.
Earth is about 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old. The universe is about13.7 billion years old.
4.5 billion years ago puts the Earth in its very early stages. The entire planet was most probably still molten with no atmosphere and under constant bombardment by material that remained from the formation of the solar system. By 3.5 billion years ago, Earth had formed a crust, the oceans had form…ed, and an atmosphere with almost no oxygen existed. Volcanic activity was extremely high and the lack of an ozone layer meant that ultraviolet radiation from the sun was intense. The largest lifeforms at this time were single celled bacteria. No plants existed. No multicellular animals. (MORE)
In theory, yes. Many scientists believe that the Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. They came to this conclusion by studying rocks and stones deep in the Earth. No one can be sure though.
Assume that the age of the Earth is 4.6 billion years How many half-lives of Potassium-40 does the age of the Earth represent?
Divide 4.6 billion by 1.31x10 9 which is the half life of Potassium-40 and you will have your answer.
Assume that the age of the Earth is 4.6 billion years. How many half-lives of Rubidium-87 does the age of the Earth represent?
Divide 4.6 billion by 5x10 10 which is the half life of Rubidium 87, and you will have your answer.
The scientific evidence for the age of the Earth at roughly 4.6 billion years is overwhelming from radiometric dating of chondritic meteroites and samples of rock from the moon. It is a generally accepted fact based on scientific methods. Efforts to debase the scientific proof are based on religious… and spiritual biases. There is no religious or spiritual bias in science. Science is based on testable, repeatable scientific experimentation and is the basis of modern medical achievements, advancing technologies, agricultural production, and modern conveniences. One may question whether the fruits of science are good or bad, but science itself is the pursuit of truth. Testable truth. If there were overwhelming truth that the Earth was considerably younger, the vast majority of Earth scientists would accept that. But it's just not so. However, the evidence for a younger earth exists as well, and should be taken into consideration. Evidence includes comets, the amount of salt in the sea, and erosion. Many knowledgeable experts disagree on the issue; many earth scientists do indeed accept a younger earth, and many do not. Religion really is not an issue. To most religions it does not matter weather or not the earth is young or old. Many religious scientists disagree on this topic. Science is indeed about trying to find truth. When evidence points both ways, and leading scientists disagree, you have to make up your own mind by looking at the evidence closely and evaluating differing arguments. (MORE)
No, the earth billions of years ago. wasent a jungle. If you think about it.. how could trees live in a toxic wasteland made out of around 97% rock, how could trees live there? all it was, was a wasteland mostly rock, where nothing could survive. if you want to know more just watch the documentarys …on the weekend (They are very useful if you want to fins out) I'm only a 14 year old kid but I know. Thanks. (MORE)
If the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and the earliest existence of human beings was about 2 million years ago then where did human beings come from?
Evolution - simpler life over time makes more complex life. Living things are built to: 1 - survive and 2 - continue life (procreate in some way.) With enough time, simple proteins join to make complex proteins; complex proteins join to make amino acids; proteins and acids join to make a simple sing…ular cell, singular cells join in clusters, clusters form a more complex critter, and so on and so on over millions of years. (MORE)
In order to get an age for a rock, the rock needs to have been solidified and then remain un-modified (by heat, groundwater and pressure) since the time it was solidified. Obviously the ages we obtain using earth's rocks will be younger than the age of the formation of the solar system (and earth) b…ecause when the earth first formed it was all molten it was some time before solid rocks were formed that were not subject to reworking. (MORE)
No, some people estimate that through evolution. But for real, real real and I mean real the sun is roughly 6,000 years old. Believe me, it's true. ======== Modern science estimates the age of the sun to be around 4.57 billion years.
The dust and gas from the solar nebula took about 10-20 million years to form into the earth starting with the molten centre of the Earth which cooled down to form a crust that allowed water to begin to accumulate. In one year there is 525 948.766 minutes. So 525 948.766 x 10= 5259487660000000 minu…tes. And 525 948.766 x 20= 10518975320000000 minutes. So it took between the 5259487660000000 minutes and 10518975320000000 minutes to form the earth. (MORE)
Yes but no it not it false sorry guys I am from prince of peace school I know ever thing
No one knows quite when the world will end, yet the thought of it ending in 5 billion years is not really that relevant since obviously neither you nor I will ever live that long to see if it is true or not. :)
Why is the oldest sea floor only 180 million years old and the earth is about 4.6 billion years old?
Sea floor is being made of basalt is denser then continental crust, about 3.3 grams per cubic centimeter. This means that under the right conditions such as at the edge of a continent sea floor crust can be subducted underneath the continent resulting in a "rapid" recycling of such rock.
There are probably a great number of things in the universe that are 4.6 billion years old, but the one we're most familiar with is our solar system. We believe that our Sun and its system of planets formed about 4.6 billion years ago. No EXACTLY 4.6 billion years ago, of course, but within plus or …minus no more than about 10% of that. (MORE)
There really is no evidence against the world being billions of years old, mainly because we've proven that the earth IS billions of years old.
The Big Bang theory, google it. Edit : OK, but what's "Answers" for then? Anyway, I agree it's a big question. I'll let someone else have a go at it. I would just point out that the Big Bang is reckoned to have been about 13.7 billion years ago. That number of 4.6 billion seems to relate to the … age of the solar system. Perhaps that's what the question is meant to be about. (MORE)
Every scientist that has looked objectively at the data relating to the Earth's age has come to the same conclusion that the age of the Earth must be of the order of 4.6 billion years. Early, flawed, estimates of the age of the Earth came from such methods as calculating the rate of cooling of the… Earth from an original molten state, or the rate of salination of the seas. these methods gave estimates in the range of 20-100million years. We now know that these methods gave values that were to low because they failed to take into account, for example, the heating of the Earth from radioactive decay processes. Modern methods of aging the Earth are based on radioactive decay. Knowing, for example: - the amount of argon in a potassium-bearing rock - that Argon is a product of potassium-40 decay - the half-life for the radioactive decay of potassium-40 - that a molten rock would allow the argon to escape allows us to calculate a minimum for the age of rock since it was molten and, hence, calculate the minimum time that has elapsed since the Earth itself was molten. Similar ideas are used to give the age of Uranium- or Thorium-bearing rocks from their lead content. These methods give a minimum age for the Earth of around 4.6 billion years. The evidence from the amount and rate of formation of rock strata, the consistency of the fossil record with the rate of species formation and the age of the earth and whole set of other astronomical and planetary observation data all indicate that the 4.6 billion year age is correct. Unless some Earth-shattering data appears, a person would have to ignore so much evidence to give a figure that it is very much different from this that it would be impossible to sustain that position in a logical and scientific discussion. (MORE)
I don't think so that's a little to long and besides i don't think god wants to wait that long.
Current Scientific Theories indicate that the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago by the various rocks and other materials that expanded after the Big Bang, and likely other Cosmic Materials that contributed to the formation of other planets. Asteroids were common, and each time they hit what wou…ld be the Earth, the cycle of "cooling down" the crust was interrupted, but the total mass of the Earth would grow. [Think of it like mashing two pieces of clay together and rolling them into a ball, and how the ball consistently grows every time in size] Until eventually the activity likely settled, or the period was long enough without large asteroids or collisions with large planetary bodies. Comets and general weathering and presentation of chemicals into the environment produced the gases of the atmosphere, plant life logically forming first and transforming CO 2 into Air, thus allowing for the evolution of life from sea-based to land-based. More formations, as well as the theory of plate tectonics, would give the earth its current shape. (MORE)
They are constantly moving and shifting around each other. The effect of too much shifting over a period of time is an earthquake . The plates never stopo moving so it means it is moving every year
yes the earth is still going to be around but the earth will never ever blow up.
ADAM and EVE was Exist almost hundred Thousand of years ago it is not true that mankind LIVE in this world almost 6000 years it is LIE and fake, the Mayan Civilization was exist almost 35 Thousand years ago and if Adam and Eve was almost 6000 years;why the Mayan exist almost 35 thousand years ago? t…he Bible say the Every Human live in the Planet are came to the descendant of Adam and Eve, it is True that the Beliefs that Human live in this earth almost 6000 years ago was Fake and it is just only Theory, according to the discovery of the Scientist and archaeologist the Planet was Exist almost 4.7 Billion Years ago and the Mankind live in this Planet almost Hundred Thousand Years ago, so LORD God Created the earth almost 4.7Billion years ago and mankind live almost Hundred Thousand years ago according to the Bible the world was Create by God in Six Days and From the Seventh Day GOD was Rest, there are many Proof that mankind did not exist almost 6000 years but Hundred thousand years, one of them was the Mayan according to the archaeologist the Mayan Exist in this Planet almost 35 Thousand years ago and the Mayan was Human and all Human Came to the descendant of Adam and Eve, so how Adam and Eve exist in 6000 years if the mayan was exist almost 35 Thousand years ago? this is the Proof that the Mankind DID NOT Live in 6000 Thousand years. (MORE)
Which gas was not present on earth at its formation 4.6 billion years ago out of methane water vapour oxygen and nitrogen?
When the earth was formed, volcanoes were commonplace. Thesevolcanoes released water vapor into the air, and produced gasesfilled with nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon. The planet's atmosphereconsisted of these gases and at the time, there was no free oxygen.
4.6 billion/100 = 4.6*10 9 /10 2 = 4.6*10 7 = 46*10 6 or 46 million.
Those two numbers are certainly not equal, as you can see just by looking at them. 4.6 billion = 4,600 million 4,576.2 million = 4.5762 billion But . . . when 4,576.2 million is rounded to the nearest hundred million (0.1 billion), it's 4.6 billion.
Various numbers are thrown around for the end of the world. They are based on speculation, not fact.
Since Earth and the other planets finished forming the orbits ofthe major objects of the solar system became stable, so nothing bigenough to significantly increase Earth's size has collided with it.
It's quite simple really. What happens to something when it dies? It decomposes, right? This doesn't just apply to living things though. It applies to all atoms. All atoms give off radiation even in small amounts. This is referred to as radioactive decay. This happens at a set rate. It i…s not affected by gravity, or any of the other basic forces. It's not a guess, it's a fact. By measuring the amount of radioactive decay and object has, you can get an estimate of how old that object is. (MORE)
They use radioactive dating methods. The basic idea is that the concentration of radioactive isotopes decreases over time. At the same time, the concentration of the daughter products increases.
No - there is a reasonable end to the Earth! At some point in the very far future (5 billion years or so) the Sun will expand to engulf the Earth and that will be the end of humanity if it has survived to that point - I doubt any humans as we know them today will be there to witness this - we will b…e on other planets in other star systems by them. (MORE)
think of a massive piece of land that is bigger than a continent now think of you standing in front of it while it moves toward you at speeds slower than a snail stuck in hot tar. another way to think of it, it took BILLIONS of years of that constant snail in hot tar pace to move the continents into… the position they're in now. (MORE)
4.6 billion is 4,600,000,000.... hundreds then thousands then millions then billions. Therefore 4,600 million or " four thousand six hundred million"
145 quadrillion seconds, approx. Since the number of years is given to 2 significant digits, any precision greater than 3 significant digits is pointless.
HOT!!! 4 billion years ago, the Earth was still newly re-formed and becoming solid, after the titanic collision with another planet perhaps as large as Mars.There probably wasn't much in the way of atmosphere or surface water. No life at all; that would come a little less than a billion years later.… (MORE)
I think it's because the formation of rock is an ongoing process, and it didn't stop 4.6 billion years ago.
What planet is 110 times bigger in diameter of Earth an avraged sized star and about 4.6 billion years old?
It would have to be 880,000 miles in diameter, which is the diameter of the Sun.
they move because its due to the magma and they move to form things etc.....
The details are quite complicated, but as I understand it, the main evidence is radioactive decay. The exact mix of isotopes of different elements in a compound can provide evidence of how old it is (sometimes this might mean, when a substance solidified), since the mix of isotopes will change over …time, in case some of the isotopes are radioactive. (MORE)
4.6 billion years ago, our planet was far too hot to permit life ofany kind. Indeed, life would have been difficult here even duringthe Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB), which occurred about 4.0 billionyears ago. There is strong evidence of cellular life here about 3.55 billionyears ago. That would ind…icate less complex life would have beenhere before then, or "soon" after the LHB. In the same way thescientists don't know why we have lightning in the sky, scientistsaren't certain how or when life arose on our Earth. If it arosefrom non-living chemicals soon after the LHB, the process wasunexpectedly quick. This has led some sceintists to hypothesizethat chemicals for life came from outside our immediate solarsystem. At present, studies are ongoing. (MORE)
The best estimate for Earth's age is based on radiometric dating offragments from the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite.
Just as new sea floor forms at mid-ocean ridges, new sea floor isforced back into the mantle at abduction zones. The oldest seaflooris at east and west the edges of the Atlantic Ocean, dating to thebreakup of Pangaea.
Approximately how old is the Earth 4.6 billion years old 3.8 billion years old 4.6 million years old 3.8 million years old?
Approximatelyhow old is the Earth? . 4.6 billionyears old . 3.8 billionyears old . 4.6 millionyears old . 3.8 millionyears old .