Are there any gephysicists or archaeologists who believe the Earth is no older than 6000 years???

Question

If so state your credentials.

If no, state your credentials and give a comment or link that can not be denied.

Answer 1

The 4400 BC theory based on strict literal interpretation of begats and lives in the Old Testament is fundamentally flawed, unless one ignores all empirical evidence and throws themselves blindly into faith. Based on the known half-life of U-238, which decays inexorably in half every 4.5 billion years, the oldest rocks that we have found date back exactly that far. Evidence speaks louder than words spoken by folks who were ignorant of the evidence 3000 years ago.

Answer 2

I have a BSc and and MSc both in scientific archaeology. I expect there are archaeologists out there that do believe the earth is no older than 6000 yrs but as soon as you start reading about olduvai gorge and the early hominids that have been found there it seems obvious that this is not the case. 6000 yrs just isn't long enough for all the development to have happened in. Also the egyptian and mesopotamian civilisations were up and running 5000 yr ago. 1000yrs doesn't seem very long to develop writing systems and agriculture and all the other stuff they had. Interesting question though.

Answer 3

There was a geophysicist 2 years above me at university who graduated with a 2.1, but was a creationist. I don't believe that it's a conflict of views, so long as he only deals with the side geophysics which is about understanding the earth purely as it is now.

Answer 4

If there are any that believe that, then I hope they will be struck off any professional registers & booted out of the scientific community.

The recent rise of 'creationalism' is very worrying. I've heard all the arguments and so-called evidence for it, and have also seen every single one WITHOUT EXCEPTION shot down in flames.

But then again, as someone (and I've no idea who) said, "if you are a sceptic, no amount of evidence is enough; if you are a believer, no amount of evidence is necessary".

Or, something like that ;-)

Having said that, if there was a devine creator who had the means to create the universe, then that creator would also have the means to create fake fossil records, falsify radioactive dating results, etc. A creationallist can use that argument; a scientist cannot disprove it, but that does not constitute proof either way.

Answer 5

Only the creationist ones, and I think most of those don't have official credentials.