How old is earth

[BADecker]

Earth is old 4.5 billion years just believe what scients say and don't listed God books because that isn't true.That thint from Bible are just scam informations from some crazy brain in crazy history.

Listen to scientists when they tell you how old the earth is. Why? Because essentially they say that they do not know.

The scientists that have studied the question will tell you right out that they "think" that the earth is this or that old. But they will, also, tell you that they don't really know. So, listen to them.

The scientists who have NOT studied the question will tell you that they were listening to the scientists who DID study the question, and that they interpreted the answers this way or that. But they, themselves, don't really know how old the earth is.

Then there's the media, which will tell you anything that they think you want to hear, as long as it makes some money for them.

So, listen to the scientists, because they telly us that they don't know how old the earth is.

[Buffer Overflow]

[BADecker]

Major flaws in standard scientific dating of the age of the earth: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth:

...

51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
52. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
53. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
54. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work. See: Objections.
55. Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
56. Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).
57. Demonstrably non-radiogenic ‘isochrons’ of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron ‘dating’ that gives billions of years. ‘False’ isochrons are common.
58. Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different ‘ages’ undermine all ‘dates’ obtained from zircons.
59. Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
60. The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, Chapter 2 (pages 25–100) in: Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Volume II, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2005.
61. Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296)

...

There are many links within the text, at the website (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth), to back up what is said there.

[Buffer Overflow]

^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.

[BADecker]

^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.

They have links from all over the place to back up what they say, Fluffer.

[Jmild1]

Major flaws in standard scientific dating of the age of the earth: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth:

...

51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
52. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
53. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
54. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work. See: Objections.
55. Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
56. Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).
57. Demonstrably non-radiogenic ‘isochrons’ of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron ‘dating’ that gives billions of years. ‘False’ isochrons are common.
58. Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different ‘ages’ undermine all ‘dates’ obtained from zircons.
59. Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
60. The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, Chapter 2 (pages 25–100) in: Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Volume II, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2005.
61. Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296)

...

There are many links within the text, at the website (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth), to back up what is said there.

Too bad your source of information is as biased as your perspective in life. Lol.
Seeing the name of the site will give you an idea that it's a site for theist people looking for argument that they can use in scientific datas.

[RealityTruth]

^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.

You are confused 

You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here.

[BADecker]

Major flaws in standard scientific dating of the age of the earth: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth:

...

51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
52. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
53. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
54. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work. See: Objections.
55. Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
56. Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).
57. Demonstrably non-radiogenic ‘isochrons’ of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron ‘dating’ that gives billions of years. ‘False’ isochrons are common.
58. Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different ‘ages’ undermine all ‘dates’ obtained from zircons.
59. Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
60. The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, Chapter 2 (pages 25–100) in: Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Volume II, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2005.
61. Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296)

...

There are many links within the text, at the website (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth), to back up what is said there.

Too bad your source of information is as biased as your perspective in life. Lol.
Seeing the name of the site will give you an idea that it's a site for theist people looking for argument that they can use in scientific datas.

If you knew much of anything about science, you would see that the old-age-earth is a far more biased picture. Scientist want to promote old-age-earth simply to remove the thinking of people from the fact that God exists. It's a plan to enslave the people for monetary purposes, so that the scientists can gain wealth... and prestige, I might add.

Looking at the links in the site shows us the fact that the proofs for old-age-earth are flawed through and through.

[Buffer Overflow]

^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.

You are confused 

You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here.

Please continue...  Let's hear what you got to say.

[BADecker]

^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.

You are confused 

You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here.

Please continue...  Let's hear what you got to say.

RealityTruth can show old-age-earth easily by throwing in all the links in the site I linked to above. Then he can add a bunch more from Googling "age of the earth." But you can do this, yourself...
I was going to add "can't you" to the end of my last sentence. But I am realizing that maybe you can't.

[Buffer Overflow]

^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.

You are confused  

You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here.

Please continue...  Let's hear what you got to say.

RealityTruth can show old-age-earth easily by throwing in all the links in the site I linked to above. Then he can add a bunch more from Googling "age of the earth." But you can do this, yourself...
I was going to add "can't you" to the end of my last sentence. But I am realizing that maybe you can't.

If I Google "age of earth" I would get 50 links for proof of young earth and 100 links for proof of old earth.

Your point?

[BADecker]

^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.

You are confused  

You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here.

Please continue...  Let's hear what you got to say.

RealityTruth can show old-age-earth easily by throwing in all the links in the site I linked to above. Then he can add a bunch more from Googling "age of the earth." But you can do this, yourself...
I was going to add "can't you" to the end of my last sentence. But I am realizing that maybe you can't.

If I Google "age of earth" I would get 50 links for proof of young earth and 100 links for proof of old earth.

Your point?

Assuming you are being truthful with your numbers^, all this proves is that there are more propagandists out there than truth tellers.

[RealityTruth]

^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.

You are confused  

You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here.

Please continue...  Let's hear what you got to say.

RealityTruth can show old-age-earth easily by throwing in all the links in the site I linked to above. Then he can add a bunch more from Googling "age of the earth." But you can do this, yourself...
I was going to add "can't you" to the end of my last sentence. But I am realizing that maybe you can't.

If I Google "age of earth" I would get 50 links for proof of young earth and 100 links for proof of old earth.

Your point?

Young Earth: 14 500 000 results, not 50. Old Earth: 42 800 000 results, not 100.

= You are wrong.

[Buffer Overflow]

^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.

You are confused  

You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here.

Please continue...  Let's hear what you got to say.

RealityTruth can show old-age-earth easily by throwing in all the links in the site I linked to above. Then he can add a bunch more from Googling "age of the earth." But you can do this, yourself...
I was going to add "can't you" to the end of my last sentence. But I am realizing that maybe you can't.

If I Google "age of earth" I would get 50 links for proof of young earth and 100 links for proof of old earth.

Your point?

Assuming you are being truthful with your numbers^, all this proves is that there are more propagandists out there than truth tellers.

*shrug* If you can't even look at the other side of the argument in case there something there that frightens you, what's the point?  

You've made up your mind. You've submitted to misinformation sites like "creation.com", designed purely to mold you like soft candle wax, into the shape they want, their way, by their rules.

That's the foolish path you've chosen, burdened with the consequences it carries.

Good luck with that.

[Buffer Overflow]

^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.

You are confused  

You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here.

Please continue...  Let's hear what you got to say.

RealityTruth can show old-age-earth easily by throwing in all the links in the site I linked to above. Then he can add a bunch more from Googling "age of the earth." But you can do this, yourself...
I was going to add "can't you" to the end of my last sentence. But I am realizing that maybe you can't.

If I Google "age of earth" I would get 50 links for proof of young earth and 100 links for proof of old earth.

Your point?

Young Earth: 14 500 000 results, not 50. Old Earth: 42 800 000 results, not 100.

= You are wrong.

*sign*
I dispair sometimes, I really do.

[BADecker]

^
If your getting your "science" from "creation.com", it's little wonder you're so confused.  

The site is 100% interested in pushing their agenda, and 0% interested in the truth.

You are confused  

You don't understand much about anything and yet you still creating content here.

Please continue...  Let's hear what you got to say.

RealityTruth can show old-age-earth easily by throwing in all the links in the site I linked to above. Then he can add a bunch more from Googling "age of the earth." But you can do this, yourself...
I was going to add "can't you" to the end of my last sentence. But I am realizing that maybe you can't.

If I Google "age of earth" I would get 50 links for proof of young earth and 100 links for proof of old earth.

Your point?

Assuming you are being truthful with your numbers^, all this proves is that there are more propagandists out there than truth tellers.

*shrug* If you can't even look at the other side of the argument in case there something there that frightens you, what's the point?  

You've made up your mind. You've submitted to misinformation sites like "creation.com", designed purely to mold you like soft candle wax, into the shape they want, their way, by their rules.

That's the foolish path you've chosen, burdened with the consequences it carries.

Good luck with that.

This sounds exactly like you! You are so close to home that you can't seem to say anything that isn't about yourself, right?

When you read what the scientists say about dating the earth and universe, in their papers, they say it right out, that they are essentially guessing.

Further, science theories are not science fact. If they were, they would be called scientific laws. This doesn't mean that they are NOT laws. All it means is that nobody really knows for sure.

My question is, why are you promoting something that nobody knows if factual, and especially when there is strong evidence that it is not factual? Oh, that's right. You are Fluffer Overblow.

[Buffer Overflow]

My question is, why are you promoting something that nobody knows if factual, and especially when there is strong evidence that it is not factual? Oh, that's right. You are Fluffer Overblow.

*sign*
The thread topic is asking the age of the earth. If nobody was allowed to say anything unless it was 100% factual, nobody would able to make any posts. Be a pretty dull thread.

However, until another theory comes along with more evidence than what we have now, old earth is simple the best we have. Is it perfect? Of course not. But the evidence is certainly conclusive, and nothing yet has even come close.
Old earth won't be losing any sleep over young earth, any time soon.

Maybe 4.54 billion year old earth theory is wrong. Maybe it's trillions of years old!

[BADecker]

My question is, why are you promoting something that nobody knows if factual, and especially when there is strong evidence that it is not factual? Oh, that's right. You are Fluffer Overblow.

*sign*
The thread topic is asking the age of the earth. If nobody was allowed to say anything unless it was 100% factual, nobody would able to make any posts. Be a pretty dull thread.

However, until another theory comes along with more evidence than what we have now, old earth is simple the best we have. Is it perfect? Of course not. But the evidence is certainly conclusive, and nothing yet has even come close.
Old earth won't be losing any sleep over young earth, any time soon.

Maybe 4.54 billion year old earth theory is wrong. Maybe it's trillions of years old!

Bible history is documented eye-witness reports. No theory needed. Eye-witness beats theory, hands down. The earth and universe is less than 7,000 years old.

[dunfida]

No one really knows how old is the earth. Even science had difficulty on it, in religious state it says 6000 years and in scientific says million years which could actually bring question to our minds regarding to this mystery.

[BADecker]

No one really knows how old is the earth. Even science had difficulty on it, in religious state it says 6000 years and in scientific says million years which could actually bring question to our minds regarding to this mystery.

Except that the Bible is not vague. It is very clear, as is the history of the people who wrote it down.

Even today, Israel is one of the toughest and shrewdest nations around. And that is after God kicked them out of their position of strength because they failed Him. Think of what they were like when they obeyed God fully.