Age of the Earth is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team identified the following articles relating to Time as Vital: "for which Wikipedia should have a corresponding high-quality article, and ideally a featured article." Those marked with this icon: are also considered to be Core articles, "one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have."
Their quality-scale rating as of September 2010 is listed alongside each:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This is not a forum for general discussion about Age of the Earth. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Age of the Earth at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.
Explicitly, this talk page is not for discussing religious beliefs about the age of the Earth (this topic is discussed in the article on Dating creation) or religiously motivated (particularly creationist) objections to the scientifically derived age of the Earth (these are covered in such articles as Creation geophysics).
Article should clearly explain where the current figure comes from
For such a long, meandering, well-cited article, it's disappointing that it never actually says how we know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. There are clues - we can see that the main evidence has to do with the radioactive decay of uranium into (ultimately) lead and the Canyon Diablo meteorite, but there should be a couple of paragraphs that fill in the missing details and connect the dots. I certainly don't know how radiometric dating gets us a number, but it seems like you'd have to know how much uranium was in the Canyon Diablo meteorite at the time Earth was formed, and I don't see anything that explains that.
Calculations aren't necessary - just the concepts. And it should be in a section at the top of the article and not interspersed with history. It doesn't matter for this purpose who figured it out and when.
So if someone understands how the age of the Earth is known, please write such a section.
This is the topic of the science of geochronology. Geochronology has its own wikipedia article already.
One other thing: it's probably not obvious to every reader what the definition of the age of the Earth is, so a paragraph explaining how the Earth was formed and what constitutes its birth would also be helpful. Likewise, the article speaks in places about the age of rocks and it isn't clear what counts as the birth date of a rock. I tend to think I've created a rock when I chip a piece off of a boulder, but I know that's not the kind of age we can get from radiometric dating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giraffedata (talk • contribs) 06:57, 30 April 2014
The first two paragraphs of the lede do a good job of summing up that information, and the bulk of the article covers radiometric dating and how several different techniques and methodologies all converge to the same date. What more do you want? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
We have a separate article on Uranium-lead dating, which is linked from the lede, and explains the method(s) in quite a bit of detail. There are different methods, but in general, no, you don't need to know the amount of uranium in the original sample, either because one uses a mineral that by its crystalline structure has none of the daughter element (in this case, lead) when it forms, or because one uses isochron dating, where the different ratios in different minerals are used to establish the original distribution. But I think these details are indeed better off in the specialized sub-articles. Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The birth date of a rock was when it last froze from a molten state (lava). Potassium-Argon dating is the easiest to understand in this context:
Maybe I'm missing something here, but surely 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years is 4.54 × 109 years ± 2%, not 4.54 × 109 years ± 1%. Doesn't 1% of 4.54 × 109 = 0.0454 billion? Benboy00 (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the sources I had access to, as well of the rest of the article, it seems to me that the 1% figure is much more prevalent. Therefore, I changed the lede to read 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (rounding up from 0.0454 to make the sig figs match). Benboy00 (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)