the earth...6000 years old!?

Question

i believe this ...do you? and why do you not...can you prove me wrong? dont use carbon dating on me i will be diffrent ages on each body part! lol what do you think?

Answer 1

While you are about it, tell us how Noah managed to nip all over the world and collect two of every species for his ark? There are thousands and thosuands of species from every corner of the world. How did he do it.

Don't say that God did it for him, because that negates the whole reason for Noah building the ark, since God could have harbored the animals til the flood receded.

And if the Noah story is just allegory then it puts to question the whole book of Genesis.

The creationists still haven't explained to us what all those dinosaur fossils are doing in the ground, and they were by no means the only giant land animals that roamed Earth.

But apart from that there is so much evidence that the Earth is billions of years old that it becomes a no brainer.

Just look around you.

Funny thing - Christ said "Look and ye will find", but most religious people do just the opposite - close their minds up.

Answer 2

Even scientists who are religious don't think the Earth is on 6000 years old. Geology requires very long times to make the things we see. There are many radiodating methods other than carbon dating, that all agree the Earth is old. Layers of rock show how the layers were laid down and compressed over many millions of years.

But, that does not mean that there isn't someone who Created us and still watches over us. All it means is that they started the process 13 billion years ago with a Bang.

The 6000 year figure is the work of one man, an Anglican Bishop hundreds of years ago. Few claim he was divinely inspired. So he could have been (and was) wrong.

Here's a website of a scientist who is also devoutly religious. He's an "Old Earth" creationist.

http://www.reasons.org

"Old Earth Creationism (OEC) -- That the earth is ancient was well-established in science by the mid- 1800´s, and was not considered a radical idea in either the Church of England or the Catholic Church (Eiseley, 1958). From the mid-1700´s on, the theology of Special Creationism has been harmonized with scientific data and theory showing that the earth was ancient.

Theologically, the most critical element of Special Creationism is God´s personal involvement in Creation; precise details of how God created are considered secondary. The present may indeed be different from the past, but OECs see God as an active causal agent of the observed changes."

For most people there is no conflict between science and their religion, although extremists on both sides continue to try to incite conflict. Reasonable people needn't fall into their trap. One can have faith and still accept modern science.

Answer 3

No, because I realize C-14 dating doesn't work on living tissue, and has other limitations. I also realize there are other methods of radiometric testing that are suited to other time frames, and although none work in every circumstance, together they work very, very well to cover almost every possible age. Then again, I also have learned I'm not nearly as expert on nuclear physics as those who have a PhD in that field, and they all say it is accurate. On what grounds do you claim to know more about nuclear phycics than practically every living nuclear physicist?

I also know astronomers and cosmologists have determined the Earth is older by methods unrelated to radiometric dating. I assume you are also more of an expert in that field than all of them?

Also, geologists can tell it took more than 6000 years for the strata to form, may of the individual formations would have taken longer just for the extremely fine sediments (like the diatoms in the Niobrara Chalk formation) to accumulate into that thickness. Once again, you are claiming to be more knowlegable than geologists in their own field.

Geneticists have determined rates of mutation, and conclude it took many times longer for individual species to reach the level of diversity we see today... yet another area you lead the world in expertise?

I am amazed that you not only have such a diverse knowledge, but actually surpass the puny intellects of some of the most intelligent people alive who specialize in those areas. Just one question... if you are such an amazing genius, why are you asking questions here instead of solving the worlds major problems?

Answer 4

Few, if any, scientists believe that the earth is 6000 years old. That is a religious doctrine, not a scientific theory.

Some "Young Earth" believers say that the universe, not just the earth, is only 6000 years old. The proof that this is wrong is that we can see light from stars which are billions of light years away. That means that the light has been traveling through space for billions of years.

Answer 5

There are more ways than carbon dating to prove the earth is older than 6000 years. Ice Cores, Geology, Climatology, radioactive decay, fossil record etc.. Creationists always refute these methods with made-up science that can't be proven.

Answer 6

Try this some time ==> read your bible and while doing so use that thing between your ears. If you can't recognize at least a ga-zillion inconsistencies then the area between your ears is either empty or has petrified.

And, like several others here have already done, prove to me that the Earth is no older than 6,000 years BUT do it without quoting the bible. We can't use carbon dating against your argument, so you can't use scriptures against ours. Fair's fair..!

Answer 7

My technical answer-
There are marine animal fossils on high mountaintops in the Italian alps. They didn't get there thanks to a global flood.
Sediment will not stay on mountaintops long enough to solidify, put simply, mud rolls downhill.

Fossils cannot form on high mountaintops due to the action of freezing and thawing water. Put a sealed glass bottle full of water in a freezer to see what would happen to the void left by a decayed animals body in sediment on a mountaintop. The flow of disloved minerals in water is also required to form fossils which is also disrupted by freezing. Freezing water dumps disolved minerals without crystalizing them into coherant structures.

These fossils are found in metamorphic rock which requires high temperatures and pressures to form. Pressures and temperatures not to be found on any mountaintop anywhere, ever.

The mountains were pushed up by a measurable ongoing process of continental drift over millions of years. In particular by the african plate grinding into the eurasian plate.

The fossils are the remanants of animals living on shallow seafloors that were buried, fossilized, subjected to the temperatures and pressures needed to transform sedimentary stone into metamorphic rock as a result of collissions of said continental plates.

None of which could have happened inside a six thousand year time-frame without powderizing the fossils and the stone they were entoombed in. Goodnight ladies.

My irritated smart @ss answer-
How about Uranium-Lead dating. That puts the earths age at roughly four and a half billion years.

Carbon dating will only get you sixty thousand years or so Carbon 14's half life won't take you back to the formation of the earth.

LOL you don't know anything about radiometric dating methods.

You probably don't even know where the creationist claim of a six thousand year old earth is from do you? ZOMFG

Bet you don't know that the 'method' involved in getting the creationists number can't actually be performed because the needed information isn't actually in the source book(s). ROTFL.

Bet you're just parroting some crap your favorite preacher or televangelist said without bothering to verify it scientifically or scripturally aren't you?

Bet I'm just wasting my time, exersizing my intellect and venting my spleen at someone who couldn't understand any of this even if he wanted to.

Answer 8

there is no longer something incorrect with a 40 3 12 months previous guy being with a 19 12 months previous female. they are both criminal age adults. i'm 40 3 and that i might want to love to this point a 19, 20, or 21 12 months previous female. Many relationships exercising consultation sturdy between older adult males and youthful girls and the vice versa. when I worked at Wal-Mart, i had a woman co-worker who grow to be in her early 20s and she or he grow to be married to an older guy in his 50s. they are nevertheless married and performance youthful little ones. those who bash older adult males 40 and above for courting youthful females 18 to 20-5 are in simple terms a collection of stupid trolls. that's 2016, no longer 1956. do in simple terms not stress a youthful females at 19 to this point you. If she ought to be with youthful adult males her age, enable her attempt this. loads of nineteen 12 months previous women like older adult males 40 and above.

Answer 9

What's the use? I show you all the proofs that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and you just say "I'm not convinced". You show us your proof that it's only 6000 years old, and we all just say "We're not convinced".

You talk about proof as if it was something that everybody would agree on. You're wrong about that, so you're probably wrong about the age of the earth, too.

Answer 10

There is much evidence that the earth is young.
For example
The saltiness of the sea.
Decay of the magentic field.
Recession of the moon
Too much helium in rocks.
The existence of short-term comets.
etc.

In fact most dating methods indicate a young earth/universe.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/

The principle method for 'proving' age is radiometric dating.
This relies on many assumptions and is flawed. Volcanic rock just a few years old from Mt St Helens was dated as millions!
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059/

Dinosaur bones allegedly millions of years old still contain red blood cells.
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/creationontheweb?q=dino+blood&hl=en&lr=