Evolutionists - Proof Earth 6000 to 12000 Years? (read)?

Question

To those who believe the Big Bang. Many of you have posted things to us about how we would act with absolute proof of the Earth being older than we believe. Can you honestly answer the following question without being sarcastic....,

"What if one day there came proof that the Earth is only 6,000 to 12,000 years old - would the larger science community (and you) still buck and snort, refusing to change the history and educational science books?"

I am not declaring anything here one way or the other. I am just asking a question.

Answer 1

If there was proof of a young earth then of course the scientific community would embrace it - the fact that you would even ask this question shows that there is a sad delusion about Science out there.

IF there was such proof (that overwhelmed all the massive indications of an ancient earth, like the whole science of geology to start with, not to mention astrophysics, nuclear physics and etc) then everyone would accept it. That is how science works.

It would create a massive amount of opportunity for new science to be done - it would be the greatest career making opportunity ever in the field of geology and so many other fields. There would be an explosion of research with many names being made. In short, scientists would love it.

Answer 2

In science, nothing can be proven true, only proven false. A scientific theory is one which has never been proven false despite many, many tests, and one for which we have lots of supportive evidence.

Therefore, there will never be *proof* that Earth is 6000 years old, nor 4.6 billion years old. That said, all the scientific evidence points to the age being 4.6 billion years old. There is nothing other than the Bible (not a scientific source, I might add) that suggests the Earth is any younger. But if, someday in the future, an even greater amount of evidence mounts suggesting Earth is that young, then yes, scientists will have to change their ideas. We/they might not be happy about it, but we/they will change.

When Copernicus first said that Earth orbited the Sun instead of the other way around, many of his contemporaries bucked and snorted (to steal your phrase). It took a long while before the entire scientific community accepted his work, even longer for the general population (some people still think the Sun orbits Earth!).

By the way, the Big Bang has nothing to do with the age of Earth. The Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago and formed our universe. "Shortly" there after stars and galaxies formed. Many of those original stars have died and new ones have formed. Our Sun plus the solar system that surrounds it was formed 4.6 billion years ago. If you're going to argue that "evolutionists" are wrong, please get your facts straight first (although I will grant you that it is a common misconception, thinking the Big Bang formed the solar system).

Answer 3

I think its a very legitimate, speculative question. It's really not a scientific question, but it's interesting nonetheless.

If it was proven that the Earth is only 6000-12000 years old, I think it would be quite shocking to the scientific community. The 'proof' would be key to how the community might react. Science would be forced to consider the new evidence and develop radically new theories that explain our present circumstances. There would be much debate.

One of the most hotly contested issues would be in resolving the descrepancy between this new 'proof' and the large amount of existing evidence to the contrary. Apparently, in this alternative reality, someone or something planted all of this contradictory evidence to lead us off track, and make us believe something that wasn't true.

I think the majority of scientists would question the motives for such an elaborate and carefully crafted lie.

If this alternative were in fact the real truth, then the fabricator of the false evidence would be guilty of a great sin, on an intergalactic scale.

You're correct though. In this case we would need to change all of the science books and the history books. We'd also be compelled to change the religious books to indicate that our 'Creator' was deceitful and full of spite.

Answer 4

No matter what you "believe", beliefs cannot change the science. Evolution, as a science, is being proven every day with scientific facts. Reproducible evidence and scientific reasoning have led geologists, like me, to conclude that evolution is in fact a provable science.

To date, no scientific evidence supports the young earth theories. Studying geologic principles and processes in a truly scientific manner will lead you to no other conclusion than the earth is 6,000,000,000+ years old.

Don't get me wrong, I am a practicing Catholic and read the Bible. If you really and truly want an answer to your question, take some geology courses. Take some Paleontology courses. You will find the 6,000 - 12,000 year old earth age theory impossible to prove.

Answer 5

The answer to your question is no.

Science is not faith. Scientific theories [unlike faith] are constantly under scrutiny of being re-proved by everyone.

Case in point: When I was a boy, Saturn had 4 rings. Period. That's what we could see through a telescope, and science is about what you can observe, repeat, and deduce.

But since, we have built better telescopes. AND we launched Voyager 2, which took great photographs right up close. Guess what? Saturn actually has hundreds of rings, most made of of dust and ice!

That's the way science is. As human understanding grows, so does science.

Answer 6

Common sense. You do not need a first class honours degree in Earth sciences .
Stand in the bottom of the Grand Canyon . Think how long it takes for sand and mud to accumulate and lithify (i.e. compress and turn into rock ). Count the layers.
Go to The Arctic (or better still The Antarctic). think how long it takes for snow to accumulate. Start digging ( core samples go down thousands of metres! ) They are two small examples, I could go on and on.

Answer 7

If it's good proof, then we'd change the history and science books quickly! Then there'd be a big academic flagellating of the scientists who thought that radioactive decay made it seem that the Earth was much older.

Answer 8

How with regard to the petrified forests, trees? do you be attentive to the way previous they're? you may provide earth Sciences credit. Are you a J W? that could clarify it - the earth isn't older than 6000 years. The oldest guy-made merchandise unearthed from a deep coal mine grow to be dated to be around 2.8 BBBillion years previous in accordance to the age of the strata the place they have been chanced on. The spheres are made up of non corrosive metallic with 3 concentric grooves around their equators. Then there are all the different issues interior the loads of tens of millions of years previous. examine up on that for the period of "The Hidden historic past of the Human Race" or Forbidden Archeology " with the help of Michael A. Cremo. That guy is acquainted with and has a great number of photos, references. whilst i grow to be working in a nickel mine in Northern Manitoba there grow to be a slab of rock approximately one backyard in the time of on the wall at the back of the reception table at city corridor. It confirmed a human footprint with a sole the place you may see the stitches of the only. That footprint got here from the 2000 foot point of the mine. It grow to be dated at approximately 2 hundred Million years previous..... the strata the place it grow to be extracted, chanced on.

Answer 9

Of course not.Science,by definition,is fluid and changing.If sufficient evidence turns up that suggests that the world is only 6000 years old,then science will adjust to the change.

Answer 10

Science is self-correcting. If evidence comes to light suggesting a change to conventional wisdom, scienctists debate the new evidence and adjust scientific theories or laws to match the new data.