Without listing any religous texts, show me proof that the Earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old?

Question

Remember no religous texts, as they are biased sources. Please, I would like serious answers. Thankyou

That's exactly my point. I asked the question this way because all of the only proof young earth theorists can give is "go re-read the holy scripture, it's in there"

Nemises: LOL, that's a good one

Big Bang: If you weren't going to give a real answer and in the process kind of insult me, I would've appreciated it if you would not have answered. Peace be with you.

JDude: I know this question can be turned around but to my defense science deals with things that can be seen. What do religous texts have to offer besides it's true because it says so.

Answer 1

Here's a serious answer from a MIT scientist:

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/contact.html

Answer 2

i really wish people would stop proving their ignorance of science when citing carbon dating as being the big reason for disbelief in science, ergo, the bible must be right. true, there are instances when carbon dating does not agree with scientific logic. but, here's where i get irritated, rather than trying to find some other logical reason why, they assume science is flawed and therefore there must be a god. why not just ask a scientist to explain to you why carbon dating does not provide and accurate answer rather jumping to such an inane conclusion. here's the reason folks, because carbon as well as all atoms have what is known as a half-life. to put it simply this half-life is determined by the loss of electrons. read a science book every once in a while that doesn't start with the word the and end with the word bible and you might have known this. the half life's of elements are unique to each each element. being that carbon has such a short half life and only 14 electrons, and is found in all living things, it becomes a very useful tool in determining when something occured. it's used so often in fact that most people usually just confuse any and all methods of radioactive dating as "carbon dating." the problem here lies in the fact that carbon is only useful for dating things back for a couple of thousand years. however we do have other elements which are much more reliable for measuring longer periods of time, such as potassium, which has a much longer half life, and has many more electrons, therefore many more half life cycles.

Answer 3

I am JW we believe that Adan has 6000 years it was in 1975 his 6000 thousand birthday but we don´t believe that the period of 6 days are of 24 hour, please read this.

Was all physical creation accomplished in just six days sometime within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years?
The facts disagree with such a conclusion: (1) Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (2) End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.
Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation. This included creation of the basic kinds of vegetation, marine life, flying creatures, land animals, and the first human pair. All of this is said to have been done within a period of six “days.” However, the Hebrew word translated “day” has a variety of meanings, including ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109) The term used allows for the thought that each “day” could have been thousands of years in length.

Answer 4

Marcus Ross' recent Ph.D. (Univ. Rhode Island) in paleontology demonstrating he could accept Old Earth Darwinism as a working but falsifiable hypothesis is a data point that disproves your implied assertion that the earth could not be scientifically considered to be "young".

I respectfully suggest you start with the following:

http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design-peer-reviewed-faq.htm

Then check out some others:
http://conference.nwcreation.net/

http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/videos/v049sk.htm

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/linksUS_L2Z.htm

http://www.gcc.edu/Conference_examines_evolution,_intelligent_design.php

http://www.darwinvsdesign.com/

There you have it, no bible verses. Now I have my own condition: The actual reading and careful studying of the materials above is left to the student (you!) as an exercise.

Please come back when you have fully digested these materials and ask some cogent questions based upon your studies. I will be happy to respond.

Answer 5

Just who the Hell do you think you are demanding that I show a little twerp like you anything. Suppose I don't give a damn if you know how old the Earth is. Where did you get ten thousand years from anyway. If dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago how could the Earth be 10,000 years old. What are you dense or what.

Answer 6

Its a theory just as the earth being millions and millions of years old is. The proof is in the bible. All our evidence is here existing in the present. So is the evolutionist proof. We both have the same evidence we just interpret it differently. Just because a man is smart enough to build a craft to blast someone into space doesn't give him supreme authority over things such as evolution or the age of the earth. Can scientist take a fossil and say for certain they know what time it came from? Fossilization is not a slow a process as you might believe. Archaeologist have found fossilized Teddy bears and aluminum cans. Would you say that was proof that teddy bears and cokes were around for millions of years?

Answer 7

Without using any science, prove it isn't.

You rule out an answer by framing the type of evidence you will accept. This is a very good way to construct an argument. You can see it all the time in political discussions. The method is to define the sort of evidence that leads you to the conclusion you already have and rule out of court any other thing as not fitting your idea of what constitutes evidence.

I guess the only thing I can point out to you that the bias you see is one shared by many otherwise sane people, people with jobs, families and maybe a decent credit rating. You might consider the dictum from science- all experimental results are a function of the instrument you use to measure them with. Or, the lay version of that- "If you aren't going to allow potatoes, I'm never gonna prove potato soup."

Answer 8

It is NOT the earth that is 6-8,000 years old. That figure is how long man has been on the earth.
the earth itself is about the same as what the scientists say. Billions of years old.
We have the bones proof of the dinosaurs.
But no bones of man have been found with them.

Answer 9

Biblical text and Christian faith does not require belief in a young earth as many uneducated so-called "Christians" have a tendency to believe. The problem with most fair-weather Christians is that they do not care enough about their own faith to research it thoroughly enough to present any kind of rational argument.

As Moises3702 stated, the original Hebrew translation of the word "days" as it is used in the creation account in Genesis does not refer to a literal 24hour period as we know it, but instead means "an indefinite age or period of time." This is in accordance with simple logic. Time need not be counted by God who exists outside the constraints of Time and Space. As man only came into being during the 6th and final period of creation, his reckoning of time based on the "rise and setting" of the Sun is far removed from God's concept of time.

The young-earth theory is not only scientifically flawed, but it is also un-Biblical, and should not be defended by Christians.

Answer 10

Without citing any biblical or scientific sources, proof that the earth is millions of years old is...

Dinosaurs

(or were the bones just planted by us evil Aheists to make God look bad)

Answer 11

Even with religious texts there is no proof. There is only personal interpretation - which is precisely why the Bible itself wisely tells us that the Scriptures are not for personal interpretation. You cannot prove something that does not exist. But you can misinterpret your way to any conclusion you want to reach.
.