Who can prove the earth isn't 6,000 years old?

Question

If you know the earth isn't 6,000 years old, than prove man's radiocarbon dating techniques are infallible.

http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=262&ItemID=668

http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=262&ItemID=707

http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=262&ItemID=797

Dinosaurs were just old reptiles. Read this: http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=262&ItemID=630

BTW: I'm not spamming the same stuff, but it is on the same website. I have more than one website I use, but this is the one I'm currently looking at.

All of you claim that Christians, "follow the crowd," yet claim that "since all the scientists etc believe in an old earth, and that it is taught in science books, than it must be true." That's being hypocritical. Even though there ARE scientists who believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

Our dating techniques are flawed, but you wouldn't know unless you look at both sides of the picture.

dendron: With or without radiocarbon dating, they are all fallible techniques. We are humans finite in wisdom and understanding. Especially since we can't go back a billion years. BTW, if we've been around for even a million years, where are the billions of human corpses in the ground? We'd have a trillion people living with us. Plus where is the writings and documents from beyond anything past 5,500 years? There are none.

It's simple though really, just read what godsaidmansaid.com has to say about it.

Answer 1

We don't date all rocks using radiocarbon dating - and if you bothered to research outside of creationist websites, you'd understand that.
Every biologist, geologist, etc., understands that radiocarbon dating is only good to a certain date - if you took basic chemistry, you understand why - because it has a short half life in comparison to other isotopes.

There are plenty of other isotopes occurring in rocks that can, AND HAVE, been used to accurately date rocks past 6,000 years.
So either all geologist, biologist, earth scientists, etc. are delusional about something their data ALL agrees on - or some crackpots are trying to shove religious doctrine into science.

How about you prove to me that it ISN'T 6,000 years old. WITHOUT pointing to the Bible.

Answer 2

Okay first of all I would ask you to prove that the creation story in the holy book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't true (keep in mind this would only be using your thought process, not mine, on the contrary it would be against mine, but I am making allowances for you, and therefore allowing you to debunk this myth). Furthermore I read a couple of the proofs on the website listed in the question and the first two thinks which I encountered are absurd. The first is trying to disprove the reliability of Carbon-14 dating. Scientists and historians I know reject its authenticity for artifacts over 2,000 years old. Furthermore regarding the population growth rate claims, the logic used is nonexistent, and its argument filled with stupidity. It says the population growth for all time can be .5%. That is plain ridiculous. The current growth rate is about 1.1%, only double what the "assumed" rate for the middle ages was. The reality is that the population did not change and remained the same from the time of the Roman Empire until the High Middle Ages. Furthermore gowth would have been very low during the hunter-gatherer time due to famine and natural risks.

Answer 3

There are a number of techniques independent of radiometric dating that give evidence of the Earth's age. Remember that radiometric dating is a relatively new techniue; geologists knew that the Earth was hundreds of millions of years old before we had this technique. One technique is in analyzing sedimentation. I personally rafted the Green river and examined places in the canyon where there are as many 6 million sedimentary layers, one atop the other, each representing a different seasonal process. Another technique is rates of erosion, or rates of mountain building, etc. With respect to dinosaur fossils, we know that permineralization (bone being replaced by minerals) depends on specific geological conditions that take tens of thousands of years--after only 6,000 years you would still have bone, not fossils made of silica minerals.

With respect to radiometric techniques, I am not an expert in nuclear chemistry, but experts in that field believe that rates of isotopic decay are steady and predictable.

Answer 4

Radiocarbon dating isn't the only method of telling how old something is, but it's in reasonable agreement with all the other ways.

All the evidence studied so far -- fossils, rock strata, dinosaur bones, tree rings, radioactive decay products &c -- suggests that the Earth is *billions* of years old. So I'd turn the question around and say *you* are the one who has to prove *your* position. What *hard* evidence have you for supposing the Earth is only 6000 years old?

Answer 5

You do not understand scientific dating obviously, so you can tell us nothing that matters about it. Read some science and not just creationist nonsense. The way to find truth is to look at both sides of any issue. If you do that, you should see that creationsists have no side. Carbon-14 is used only for items less than 50,000 years old. There are several other elements used for dating older items, and they agree closely that earth is 4.5 to 5 billion years old. That is much proof that earth is not 6011 years old as bishop Jam,mes Ussher said. Incidentally, othe Bible scholars tried similar studies of the Bible and got ages of about 5757 to 7877 for earth. They disagree more than scientists do. you certainly cannot prove earth is 6011 years old. The bible is so imprecise that it is hard to get any coherent age for earth or the universe from it. Fossils prove earth is much older than the Bible says too.

Answer 6

Before radiometric dating, the Earth was dated mailny by means of sedimentation and index fossils. The age of the fossil was determined by the layer of sediment that it was in. The layers of sediment were counted to determine which one came first. The age of the sediment layer was then given a date by the index fossil of that layer. The problem with this is that it is circular reasoning. It has alos been shown where "younger" index fossils were found in layers beneath the "older" fossils. Also there are many multile layer fossils. there are interesting ones where trees have been fossilized with leaves roots and all, upside down through several layers.

All raidometric forms of dating rely on the radioactive decay of elements to be constant. This may be true, but can only be proven through the observation of that decay. These methods also assume a standard amount of parent element. There are no considerations for decayed elements that may have been formed in the rock. If the rock was formed with an amount of decayed material that equated to 3/4 of the half-life, the rock would be dated to that age, no the true age of the rock.

Using parallax to measure the distance of the nearest star to Earth requires an accuracy of .000000001. The most accurate surveying equipment has an accuracy of .00005. The distance of the stars from Earth do not prove or disprove anything. It proves that there is light visible on Earth from a star that may or may not still be there. The star may have been created with the light already reaching Earth (if God is smart enough to create a fern that has 220 pairs of chromosomes why can't he figure out how to get light to the Earth?).

There are no infallible proofs that the Earth is any age. All dating techniques are based on assumptions.

Answer 7

There are equations which describe how heat escapes from a hot body. You can check these equations in the laboratory.

When the crystalline forms in a big igneous intrusion are examined under a microscope, they appear to have cooled from hot liquid magma, in the same way that flows of lava solidify. When the intrusion does not break the surface, it takes longer to cool. But... how long?

When I was a geophysics student, our lecturer put up these equations on the board, gave us perfectly reasonable figures for the thickness and initial temperature of such an intrusion, and told us to calculate how long it would take the centre just to solidify, never mind reach a normal temperature.

Well, a few minutes later we were all scratching our heads, and saying "I don't know where I've gone wrong, sir, it's coming out to 250,000 years". And the lecturer said "Yes, that's about right".

So what kind of Creator God do you believe in? Does he create heat flow equations which are different now from what they were 6000 years ago? Or does he fabricate solidified granite to just look as though it has cooled from the solid, even though it hasn't? And even fabricate the clear signs of extreme heat metamorphism in the rocks which touch the intrusion...

Your God of a 6000-year-old Earth is either inconsistent or deceptive. I believe in a consistent God, whose creation operates consistently according to the same equations through all the millenia, and who does not construct parts of it designed to deceive us as to how they were formed.

Answer 8

Bro, I don't know if this is a joke or not, but you know humans have been existing for 200 thousand years right? I'm pretty sure humans haven't been existing longer than the Earth lol

Answer 9

Do I have to keep embarrassing you?

The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.


The universe is shown to be old by several independent types of measurements:

We can measure the distances to some types of stars from their apparent brightness. (We know their absolute brightness from nearby stars of the same type whose distances can be measured geometrically.) We find distances more than fifty million light-years away, which means the universe must be at least 50 million years old for the light to reach us. Measurements based on the brightness of supernovae and galaxies, although less accurate, give distances up to billions of light years.
The Large Magellanic Cloud is 153,000 light years away, as measured by an eclipsing binary star (Cole 2000). This method gives a relatively direct measurement from simple observations. A star's absolute brightness is determined from its temperature and diameter, which can be determined from its spectrum and length of eclipse. Distance is then determined from the apparent brightness.
The orbits of thirteen of the Koronis family of asteroids were traced back and found to match 5.8 million years ago, suggesting that they formed then from a collision of larger asteroids (Nesvorny et al. 2002)
The ages of stars in the oldest globular clusters puts a lower limit on the age of the universe at 12.07 billion years (Chaboyer et al. 1996).
There are white dwarf stars found to be twelve to thirteen billion years old, based on their cooling rate.

How can you see the light from stars which should not have reached here yet if the earth was only 6000 years old?

I just looked at the website and laughed. The website talks of Carbon 14 dating but obviously you haven't heard of U-Th a,d K-Ar dating techniques which are used for much larger time scales. Then Isochron dating is another method and each method can be tested against the other. What is the result? Yes you guessed it. the same ages to within a high degree of certaintity. Again this is deception practiced openly by Christians. They are deceiving others by not telling the whole truth. This is the tool of the devil used by those who are supposed to be against the devil.

Answer 10

Refer back to the silly post you made about scientist switching to creationism.

Stop wasting time and go help the homeless.
Stop looking for a fight because no matter what evidence people post you will refuse to accept it or believe it.

Also I agree with the other poster
Prove beyon a doubt that the earth is not over 6000 years old and do it with out the bible and with out that web site.