也许有点退一步获得了更多的观点是必需的。注意这条线在迈克尔所提供的答案——“这可能是错误的”。这个问题揭示一些非常明显的假设:1。我们知道地球是如何形成的。2。我们知道地球形成的时候。当前的吸积理论并不持有多水,比喻和说话。只是没有灰尘或岩石在空间可以依附本身形成一个身体如地球。连最基本的物理不同意这一点。模拟必须忽略这个基本事实,而是介绍软糖因素使岩石和尘埃碰撞时“粘”在一起。 You just go out and try making rocks stick together when they smash into each other - confirm for yourself whether it will work in space where there's even less resistance to flying apart. Furthermore, even if one allows for some miraculous hot sludge of radioactive material to stick together, one immediately creates another problem: the exclusion of water because of heat. There is no acceptable way for all the water on earth to arrive here from outer space. Why would the water only strike earth [ and where would it come from in the first place ] in such a way that Mars, Venus and the moon do not have any evidence of a watery bombardment? Then there's the question of how does one measure the age of anything? Age is unfortunately not a physical property that we can measure directly like length, volume, density, etc. In order to know the age of anything one needs to have been present when it came into existence and then to have some way by which to assign some kind of measure of passage of time to it. In short - age is an abstract construct that cannot be measured physically. What can be measured is the proportions of the number of atoms of mother and daughter products of radioactive material. But having established that proportion and applying a rate of decay to determine age doesn't give a true age. Have you ever found a record of calibration that confirms that the radioactive methodology does indeed deliver the correct age? Did someone witness and record the creation of basic radioactive rock and then track it's age using the radioactive decay method? To my mind, it hasn't been done and in fact where some measurements have been made of newly created basalt in St Helen's eruption, the ages produced are plain incorrect. The best that it can produce is an "age" based on some very questionable assumptions. Since we do not know the history of the earth we need to make some assumptions regarding its creation. We need some form of "clock" by which we can measure how old the earth is. That clock has to be independent of the earth itself, hence why people use meteoroids, under the assumption that it must be at least as old as if not older than the earth itself. The main problem is that we need to know when that clock started ticking and we just don't have any means to establish an objective way to determine that. No one was there to witness and record that event. There-in lies the problem. Even if you assume that the radio-active decay happened at a constant rate[ which we have seen is now no longer true ], you still have to make assumptions about the quantities involved. But therein lies another problem - you don't know the origin and history of the original material - how long did IT exist before it started its radioactivity? One can go on ad-infinitum. So in spite of the highly "scientific" answer provided by Michael, the fact is that one cannot determine the age of the earth without making some highly metaphysical assumptions about the origin of the universe. You have to make some questionable unsubstantiated assumptions as to how the whole universe came into being. It cannot be determined scientifically, in spite of using the latest and greatest technology in cosmology today. We simply weren't there. We have no eye-witness account. We have no record. The best we can do is make assumptions of the starting point. You may not like this answer. You may even get angry at seeing it but unfortunately for you, you cannot push it's validity out of the way.