about the earth being 6000 years old...?

Question

Is there any evidence to go against that? I said fossils but then my friend said that the fossils would have been changed by water because of some flood. So can we really prove the earth is billions of years old?

Answer 1

Only bible thumpers think that way. They do not understand that the Bible is only a guide-its put into layman's terms. I am Catholic (non practicing) and I know that God did not make the Earth and all of the animals in 6 days or 144 hours. A day to us is 24 hours, a day to God may be thousands of years long or inmeasurable.

But unfortunately some people are so narrowed minded that they cannot see the forest for the trees.

Answer 2

Do you think - not believe - but think, based on evidence from the world around you, that science is a reliable way of understanding the universe and the processes that occur within it?
Think about it... medicine, technology, even the internet... these and many other things in our world are based upon physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and the other natural sciences.
If these are reliably credible, why should evidence coming from the same disciplines that has to do with the age of the earth be inaccurate? This type of evidence is based on the same scientific principles as everything else researched in the natural sciences. The current known age of the earth is based on Charles Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism - a geologic principle. But much other evidence supports this as well. Check out the article at the bottom.
Besides, what evidence does your friend produce that there was a -worldwide - flood that lasted long enough to wear several sequential geologic strata to the point that they appear billions of years old? A flood like this would have had to last a looooong time. And, there's no scientific evidence for one ever occuring.

Answer 3

we could prove it real easy one being that the world wouldnt have history that dates back 25,000 years either. i mean there is evidence that the world is millions even billions of years old and your friend is wrong about the world flood it never happened and the only conclusion to that as proof is that there is no record of a world flood in other countries just local floods of the area of noah at the time. the idea that the world is only 6000 years old comes from the writings in the bible that date back to about 3000 years ago. humans have been here for thousands of years before the bible was written. ever notice in the bible it doesnt talk about other nations on other continets either? there is a reason for that too since the writers of the bible didnt know anything outside there own lands of the time. another fact that the earth is billions of years old is the shape of the land masses and some of the islands as well they didnt just get there by chance either. the metors that killed off the dinasours also proves that the fossils have been here thousands of years already. research by carbon dating also shows that the world is very old. evolution is a theory but its the best theory anyone has at the moment but we can all draw our own theories from other sources of the time as well.

i hope this helps you out some what.

Answer 4

6000 years only of human being. From bible you'll learn that Moses and the gang lived much more before JC.

There are 2 ways : The bible which describe the world from the beginning till now. The geological events described there match the reality of time, there are scientists who really proved that the bible is wright with the creation of the earth. The days when God created the words are matching with geologic time. So this can prove that the world was created first, then atmosphere - the sky and stars ... then living creatures. from bacteria till human.

The 2nd way is the Darwin theory of evolution, where he explain the evolution from hundred thousands years ...

If this don't sound enough good, Dan Brown - the one who wrote Davinich's Code - has a book very interesting, based on a meteorite that crashed on Antarctica and who was discovered in '90.

Answer 5

The seismic and volcanic processes that form rocks occur over millions of years not thousands and fossils are valid evidence-you find them hundreds of feet underground so they were from creatures that existed in the very distant past. Polar ice cores provide more solid and indisputable evidence-they show the atmospheric changes which earth has undergone over long periods of time-a lot longer than 6000 years.

Answer 6

People who suggest the earth is only 6000 years old are using a very literal translation of scripture. I wonder why they don't translate jesus statement about if your eye offends you pluck it out as literally. Please don't attempt this. It is important to remember that Jesus spoke in parables as well. What was his purpose? Iwould suggest as well there is a vers in the old testament that says a day with God is as a thousand years. It doesn't say one day is one thousand years but rather as a thousand years which means a really long time. By the way I am a Christian and am only suggesting that there is mre than one way to interpret data. In scientific terms there are a number of way that they try and determine the earths age. I should add no one can be very precise as some of the experts disagree within tens and hundreds of millions of years.

Answer 7

The scientific method is one where an observation is made, a theory about that observation is formed, then that theory is tested with the intent of drawing a replicable, reliable conclusion.

What Creationists do instead is to first draw a conclusion (the earth is 6,000 years old) then go looking deseprately for possible evidence to support it. That method does not work.

There are thousands and thousands of ways to prove it, but none of them will convince anyone who thinks "the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old, and if the Bible does says it, it's true".

Remember, the same bible interpretation that put people in jail for saying the earth was round is having people say the earth is just 6,000 years old.

Perhaps radio-isotope dating to difficult to understand or argue; it is just one of many, many methods that al point to the same 4.5B year answers. Pseudo-scientists will try to wear you out with argument after agrument, but it is all shown to be non-sense, over and over again, noise to wear you out, to make you say "I quit, I don't want to think about this anymore."

For example; young-earth types claim that coal wasn't formed over millions of years, but quickly formed a few thousand years ago. Another erpson anwering here wrote extensinsively in support of that claim. While ti can easily be shown to be ridiculous (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/veggiematic.htm), they will persist and persist.

The Grand Canyon was not formed in just the past 6,000 years. You can walk the Grand Canyon, and other Canyons like ot all over the world, and see the layer after layer of sediment, and see where the fossils show up, exactly where scientists would expect them to over time. You can see how the river carved it, and instantly understand that it did not happen over just a few thousand years.

Dinosaurs and humans did not walk the earth together. Dinosaurs did exist, but not 6,000 years ago.

Did Noah have T-Rex and Stegasaurs and Raptors and Tricerotops and Wooly Mammoths on the Ark with him?

We know there was an Ice Age about 11,000 years ago, when wooly mammoths walked the earth; we can drill down in the ice core and see the annual layers of know how old the ice is, just as we count the rings of a tree to know its age.

We know places that places are now covered in ice were once tropical residences of dinosaurs that could not survive ice ages.

Woolly mammoths and dinosaurs did not walk the earth together, but we know they both lived in the same places.

Many people refute these things, but they sadly and knowingly bare false witness.

We know the speed of light, and we know how faraway things are in the universe, and we know that those things sent their light to us more than 6,000 years ago.

Simply put, there is no sensible argument against the earth being billions of years old, except to say "the Bible says 6,000." They will say "back in the beginning, radioactive decay and the speed of light and those things behaved by different rules," with no basis for saying such things other than faith.

Answer 8

the decay of radioactive isotopes, plate tectonics, but the reality is if you really want to believe the world is 6000 years old, there is no proof that will convince you otherwise, you have to examine the evidence with an open mind

and "carbon dating" will not establish the age of the earth, isotopes of carbon have too short a half life for that

Answer 9

Rather than accepting the 6000 year age of the Earth, get them to prove THAT. It makes no logical sense given the ageless time span of the cosmos. The bible and all writings of history are less than 4000 years old. 6000 years makes absolutely no sense.

Answer 10

It has been proven over and over and over that the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old.

Of all the ignorance that comes out of the mouths of Christians, a 6000 year old earth is by far the most asinine.