Thursday, June 5, 2008

Why the earth is 4.6 billion years old

This issue has been brought up many times, mainly I have given a theological perspective on why to believe in a 4-billion year old earth, of course that is getting old (no pun intended). In this article will explain why most scientists believe earth is 4.6 billion years old. Now I do not accept the current scientific thinking in these areas simply because I lack faith or because I don't want to "obey God's word," I would like nothing more then to have a belief on origins more consistent with my religious beliefs, but young earth creationism is not an option atleast not from a scientific perspective. And in this article I will show you why I think this way.

Proof 1; Radiometric dating

The first proof I must bring up is radiometric dating, now I can already hear some people saying, "The dating methods are completely inaccurate! The R.A.T.E. proved it. "

I hear your plea and will get to that in a moment, but first let me explain how radiometric dating works to those who are in the dark about it. Lets take the most famous type of radiometric dating which is known widely throughout young earth creationist circles, you've guessed it; Radiocarbon dating (I also left a link for those who want to know more about it from more professional sources). Radiocarbon dating is used to date objects within the realm of 60,000 years of age (so it obviously wouldn't be prove of a billion-year old earth). There are two stable carbon atoms in nature; carbon-12 and carbon 13. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere they hit the stable carbon 12 atoms which become carbon 14 atoms. C-14 is ingested by plants for photosynthesis, they receive C-14 at a constant rate throughout their life, so do the animals that eat the plants. Now when an animal or plant dies no more C-14 is being consumed; what happens? You remember that C-14 is unstable and will eventually decay back into C-12. Well it has been calculated that it has a half-life of 5,730 years, meaning that in 5,730 years half of the C-14 in the organism will have decayed back into C-12 (this is an unsatisfying brief explanation if you want to know more about C-14 dating go the link I provided ). Other methods work about the same way; during a volcanic eruption the argon gas which Potassium (40-K) decays into escapes from the lava, then when the lava hardens all you have is potassium which decays into Argon (Ar-40) in 1.26 billion years, (a little longer then 10,000 years) this method is called Potassium-Argon dating.

Now I am sure several of you are exploding with anxiety especially since the two examples I gave are favourite targets of young earth creationists. One thing that is often brought up is wildly inaccurate dates. For example rock that had formed in the mount Saint Helens eruption in 1980, was dated at several million years. This has a simply explanation however; xenoliths are foreign sections of rock torn of a lava conduit during an eruption. The rock may be millions of year older then the lava itself. When the lava around the xenolith hardens it causes the otherwise young rock around it to look older then it really is, it turns out Mount Saint Helens incident was where a xenolith had hardened in the crust. There are many times where this happens; geologists recognize there are limitations to dating methods and do indeed understand they can be innacurate. However only about 100 out of 100,000 are inaccurate. This is in fact actually quite reliable; plus they are crosschecked with other dating techniques and as a result you get a pretty reliable date. Now that we know they are reliable, lets look at the problem for young earth creationism, the problem is blaring obvious. if these method are accurate then why do we have elements in the soil which form so slowly? Now you might also ask just how slow are we talking? Very, very slow;

Potassium-Argon = 1.26 billion years

Uranium-Lead = 4.47 billion years

Rubidium-Strontium = 50 billion years

These methods are also discussed here at the American Scientific Affiliation website.

If young earthers are right, then there shouldn't be anything which looks older then 6500 years. If you look at potassium it should look like only 6500 years worth of decay has been happening, not billions. And yet we do find elements which have been decaying for millions even billions of years. Now you could just say, "God created the universe to look old," and that's fine. But its not any more scientifically relevant then saying Queen Maeve the house cat created the universe last Thursday and created the world to look far older. Both positions are unfalsifiable. These beliefs are fine for believing something but if you want to make a scientific theory it needs to be testable. The "Appearance of Age" hypothesis is not testable and anything in science which is not testable cannot be inferred as a scientific idea, or a viable alternative to any scientific concept.

So the fact that the dating methods show an old earth is inescapable.

Proof 2; varves, sandstone deposits, and coral reefs.

Varves in case anyone doesn't know are bi-annual layers of silt that are deposited in lake bottoms. They have two layers, a thin fine layer and a thick coarser layer; the coarser layer is from the summer months since more water enters the lake from the heavy rain fall so larger particles can be moved into the lake. During the winter months there is less rain comes so there are smaller particles and finer layers. Now the obvious problem for young earth creationism is that there are lots of them, far more then would be expected if earth were 6,000 years old. One location where there are lots of varves is the green river valley formation; it has 3 million years worth of varves. If earth is only 6-10,000 years old it should have no more then 3-5,000 varves. Now there are many objections to this, most of them are covered here.

Sandstone deposits such as the Coconino sandstone were formed by wind deposition in a desert environment. It could not have formed during catastrophic flood. The problem comes in when you consider that over many sandstone deposits such as the one I just mentioned, where there are marine fossil deposits which were supposed to have formed in the flood; How could this be if they were formed in a world wide flood?

Coral reefs grow a little annually, in fact we can tell how old a coral is by how much it has grown. There are many coral reefs far older then the flood date (4400 years ago) that would be completely destroyed in the violent events of the flood and definitely not preserved. This appears to be an ever nagging problem for young earth creationists.

Proof 3; The universe indicates earth is old

The third and final proof I will give involves the entire universe. As you may know the universe is pretty large, the farthest galaxies being almost 14 billion lightyears away. The question that comes to mind when you consider this is, how the universe can be so young and look so old? Young Earth Creationists have scrambled to come up with the answer. Sure you can say God just made the universe to look that way; but when it comes to science that is irrelevant since it is non-falsifiable, now if you want to believe this go ahead, but when it comes to science we need to consider something which can be proven with science the Appearance of Age hypothesis cannot.


By the looks of it earth must be millions if not billions of years old and there isn't an escape hatch in sight. Hopefully this will be insightful, I may not have changed any of your minds but perhaps I have caused you to think about it.

Now of course if you disagree respond and debate (and yes Chris, that means you), perhaps you will change my mind, and perhaps you won't.


Chris said...

LOL! Thanks for the invite!

Very interesting article and it did put forth some answers. Unfortunately I dont think you explained some of them very well. Or maybe the answers are in the links. But I will ask anyway.

Proof 1. Is there anything that can interrupt, slow down, or speed up the Potassium-Argon etc. decay?

2. Well this is pretty much the same question as above, is there anything that can interrupt, speed up or slow down the sediment "laydown"?
Also you say the green river valley formation has 3 million years worth of varves, this doesn't seem to fit into the age of the earth you are presenting. In fact it seems to be vastly closer to the young earth than the old earth.

Proof 3. The appearance of age. You claim that this can not be tested. But I will offer myself as proof. I am only 27 but eveyone one I work with thinks I am actually 37. I ahve never claimed to be old but my apperance has given them the impression that I am much older than I really am. Scientific tests would probably tell you that I am closer to 40 than 30. I have degenerative joint disease, wrinkles, and am going bald. That sucks for me I know, but I can't think of another one in the short period of time I have to write this.

Lastly, it seems to me that most of the calculations being put forth assume constants. That things grow and decay in an even manner and controlled manner. Maybe I am just reading it wrong but I am hoping you would clarify for me.


Created Rationalist said...

Your welcome,

Yes there is, high temperature and heavy pressure I think.

Some sediments can however varves by their very nature form in a slow methodical meanner. In saying that there are three million years worth of varves at green river valley. I was simply saying this proves earth is older then ten thousand years. No doubt earth's surface has features that indicate a greater age such as the above proof.

You are right that sometimes something may appear older then it really is;

from your condition scientists might conlude you are 30 or 40 (note if you are 27 you are close to 30) however there are also other ways of determining age such as looking at the bones themselves. Despite the fact that they are diseased they would still appear about 27 years old. Now scientists if they decided to figure out your age may not be precise but they would be close if they said 30. So because of your young bones they would decide you were only 27 despite the fact that you look 40.

Something similar to that scenario would prove young earth creationism. If you could discover "young bones in an old-looking person" on earth or in the universe, This would chnge my mind.

I hope I was able to clear that up.

AIGBusted said...

Nice post.

By the way Chris, nothing that naturally occurs on earth can change the rate of radiometric decay. There's a document "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" which goes into this.


AIGBusted said...

One more thing:

Chris, you should check out my page on radiometric dating:

Also, C&R, I have a question:

How is the issue of the bible's
genealogies resolved inside theistic evolution? The bible gives the impression that human beings have only existed about 10,000 years, yet archaeology and
radiometric/radiocarbon dates of human bones give a different impression.

Just curious.

Created Rationalist said...

Well it has to do with whether or not the geneologies are complete. For example in Matthew 1:8 it says that Joram begot Uzziah, however this is actually skipping several generations as Joram was Uzziah's great-great grandfather.

This could be the case in the Geneologies leading from Adam to Abraham.

Anonymous said...

Does the size of the sun change over the years? Recently, "John A. Eddy (Harvard -Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boornazian (a mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston) have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century…corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour."1 The diameter of the sun is close to one million miles, so that this shrinkage of the sun goes unnoticed over hundreds or even thousands of years. There is no cause for alarm for us or for any of our descendants for centuries to come because the sun shrinks so slowly. Yet the sun does actually appear to shrink. The data Eddy and Boornazian examined spanned a 400-year period of solar observation, so that this shrinkage of the sun, though small, is apparently continual.


What does the shrinkage of the sun have to do with creation and evolution? The sun was larger in the past than it is now by 0.1% per century. A creationist, who may believe that the world was created approximately 6 thousand years ago, has very little to worry about. The sun would have been only 6% larger at creation than it is now. However, if the rate of change of the solar radius remained constant, 100 thousand years ago the sun would be twice the size it is now. One could hardly imagine that any life could exist under such altered conditions. Yet 100 thousand years is a minute amount of time when dealing with evolutionary time scales.2

How far back in the past must one go to have a sun so large that its surface touches the surface of the earth? The solar radius changes at 2.5 feet per hour, half the 5 feet per hour change of the solar diameter. The distance from the sun to the earth is 93 million miles, and there are 5,280 feet in one mile. Assuming (by uniformitarian-type reasoning) that the rate of shrinkage has not changed with time, then the surface of the sun would touch the surface of the earth at a time in the past equal to

t = (93,000,000 miles) (5,280 ft/mile)
(2.5 ft/hr) (24 hr/da) (365 day/yr)

or approximately 20 million B.C. However, the time scales required for organic evolution range from 500 million years to 2,000 million years.3 It is amazing that all of this evolutionary development, except the last 20 million years, took place on a planet that was inside the sun. By 20 million B.C., all of evolution had occurred except the final stage, the evolution of the primate into man.

One must remember that the 20 million year B.C. date is the extreme limit on the time scale for the earth's existence. The time at which the earth first emerged from the shrinking sun is 20 million B.C. A more reasonable limit is the 100 thousand year B.C. limit set by the time at which the size of the sun should have been double its present size.

A further word of explanation is needed about the assumption that the rate of shrinkage of the sun is constant over 100 thousand years or over 20 million years. The shrinkage rate centuries ago would be determined by the balance of solar forces. Since the potential energy of a homogeneous spherical sun varies inversely with the solar radius, the rate of shrinkage would have been greater in the past than it is now. The time at which the sun was twice its present size is less than 100 thousand B.C. The time at which the surface of the sun would touch the earth is much less than 20 million B.C. Therefore, the assumption of a constant shrinkage rate is a conservative assumption.


The shrinkage of the sun greatly alters what we believe to be the energy source within the sun. The sun shrinks because of its own self-gravitational attraction. As it compresses itself, it heats itself. This heat is then liberated in the form of solar radiation, i.e., sunlight.

Would a 2.5 feet per hour contraction of the solar surface be sufficient to liberate all of the energy that comes from the sun? A crude estimate can be made by assuming the interior of the sun is uniform. The known formula4 for the gravitational potential energy of two masses m and M a distance r apart is U = - GmM/r, where G = 6.6 x 10-11jm /kg2. The gravitational potential energy of the sun's mass Ms interacting with its own mass Ms is U= - Gms2/R, where R is the radius of the sun. The solar power produced as the sun shrinks at the rate of v = R/t is5 P = U/t = (Gms2/R2) . (R/t) = GMs2v/R2. The mass of the sun is 2 x 1030kg, the radius of the sun is 7 x 108 m, and the 2.5 feet/hour rate of shrinkage in the radius of the sun is 2 x 10 -4 m/sec. in metric units. The power formula gives a potential solar power of 1 x 1029 watts. This potential gravitational power is hundreds of times more than the 4 x 1026 watts of power actually produced by the sun. This figure is an overestimate because the sun is actually far from uniform. The massive interior of the sun is protected by the outer layers of the sun. Only those low density outer layers are thought to contract. Even so, there is plenty of gravitational contraction energy potentially available to account for all or a large part of the sun's energy.


One thing is certain. Some of the sun's energy comes from its gravitational self-collapse. Therefore, not all of this energy comes from thermonuclear fusion. This discovery greatly alters all calculations on the evolution of the sun, because all of those calculations attribute practically 100% of the sun's energy over the past 5 billion years to thermonuclear fusion. The discovery that the sun is shrinking may prove to be the downfall of the accepted theory of solar evolution. All accepted theories of the evolution of the stars are based on the assumption that thermonuclear fusion is the energy source for the stars. If this assumption is unjustified for our own star, the sun, it is unjustified for the other stars too. The entire theoretical description of the evolution of the universe may be at stake. With the stakes that high, it is no wonder that the experimental evidence for the shrinkage of the sun is "explained away" by evolutionists. Evolutionists claim that the sun probably undergoes temporary shrinkages and expansions as small fluctuating oscillations on its overall regular evolutionary development.6 They point to other cyclic solar occurrences such as the 11-year sunspot cycle on the surface of the sun. This claim is made in spite of the evidence that the shrinkage rate of the sun has remained essentially constant over the past 100 years when very accurate measurements have been made on the size of the sun. Less accurate astronomical records spanning the past 400 years indicate the shrinkage rate has remained the same for the past 400 years.


Scientists have not always attributed the energy source of the sun to thermonuclear fusion. Prior to the discovery of thermonuclear fusion, Helmholtz predicted that the energy of the sun was supplied by the gravitational collapse of the sun.7 This model was accepted until the theory of evolution began to dominate the scientific scene. Then Helmholtz's explanation was discarded because it did not provide the vast time span demanded by the theory of organic evolution on the earth. The substitute theory was introduced by Bethe in the 1930's precisely because thermonuclear fusion was the only known energy source that would last over the vast times required by evolution. Science may now be on the verge of disproving the substitute evolutionary model of the sun.


The change in the size of the sun over the past 400 years is important in the study of origins. Over 100 thousand years these changes would have accumulated so much that life of any kind on the earth would have been very difficult, if not impossible. Thus, all life on the earth must be less than 100 thousand years old. The sun, 20 million years ago, would have been so large that it would have engulfed the earth. The earth cannot be more than 20 million years old. Those dates as upper limits rule out any possibility of evolution requiring hundreds of millions of years. However, the tiny change that would have occurred in the sun during the Biblical time since creation would be so small as to go almost unnoticed. Thus, the changes in the sun are consistent with recent creation.

The changes detected in the sun call into question the accepted thermonuclear fusion energy source for the sun. This, in turn, questions the entire theoretical structure upon which the evolutionary theory of astrophysics is built.


1 Lubkin, Gloria B., Physics Today, V. 32, No. 9, 1979.
2 Ordway, Richard J., Earth Science and the Environment, New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1974, p. 130. Fig. 5 - 23 on this page gives a good illustration of the accepted evolutionary time scale.
3 Scientific American, V. 239, No. 3, 1978. All articles in this edition list the various evolutionary time scales.
4 Halliday, David and Resnick, Robert, Fundamentals of Physics, New York; Wiley, 1974, Chapter 14.
5 The exact formula must be derived layer by layer using integral calculus. The result is identical to the formula listed, except that it contains an additional factor. The additional factor is so close to unity that it makes little difference in an estimation.
6 Lubkin, pg. 18.
7 Poppy, Willard J. and Wilson, Leland L., Exploring the Physical Sciences, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1973, P. 324.
* Dr. Akridge earned his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in physics from Georgia Tech. He earned the Th.M. degree from the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Akridge is an Assistant Professor of Physics at Oral Roberts University. He has written several articles in the Creation Research Society Quarterly in which he shows that the laws of physics support a recent creation. [Dr. Akridge and his wife, Anita, have two children, Floyd and Sheryl. They live in Tulsa, Oklahoma.]
This article was originally published April, 1980. "The Sun is Shrinking", Institute for Creation Research, (accessed November 24, 2008).

Want to use this article? View our Ethical Use Policy. To receive more articles from ICR, signup for a free subscription to our online and print publications.

nikki said...

i have a good question. sincethe year is.. 2009 then why isnt the earth 2009 years old?? like when they they start counting the years and what on??

Mirre said...

Science in these days is proving the holy bible. It's obvious that the bible doesn't say the earth is neither 6000 nor 4.6 billion years old. However, It tells us that the earth existed many years before Adam and eve's creation. In other words, God didn't create the earth in same week he created Adam. In fact, NATIONS existed before Adam and eve were even created but were destroyed by God's wrath due to Lucifer's rebellion.Isa 14:12 says "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the NATIONS!".In addition to that, the bible goes on to tell us that BIRDS also lived in that era. On Jer 4:25, God says "I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the BIRDS of the heavens were fled." Therefore, I can not provide any scriptural evidence to disprove the science fact that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. "Science isn't always against the word of God."

Dustin said...

This is good stuff. Not only is your information good, but you also sound like you've done your homework. And might I add this would've been an A graded essay, if this had been given for a grade.
I am confused about something that was pointed out, but am not sure if you applied it to your first point. The flood which you speak of that happened 4400 years ago, you are speaking of the Great Flood that is explained in the Bible and throughout other historical documentations. I have read an article about the flood. It was mentioned that it enveloped the entire surface of the earth for many years, and consequently, leaving some(?) structures appearing much older than they really are. I suggest you do a little more research, on top of the great research you've already provided. But, your plantation still remains very solid, with all of your strong points, the flood wouldn't have affected, say, the varves. Regardless of your small mistake of using more consideration of your sources and your broadness of sources, I was still quite impressed. I was pleasantly moved with the information provided to accommodate and give insight and guidance into furthering my logic and knowledge upon this subject, that I had been seeking for time and time again.

Anonymous said...

If you use your concordance on Genesis 1:1-2, you'll get an answer... The problem isn't the Bible, I think it's the snake-heeding inclination of it's readers, including myself ;) Lord help us.

Mirre said...

Thank you Dustin for the Compliment, though I want to make clear which flood I was talking about. I assume that the flood which you were referring to is “NOAH’s FLOOD”. The flood which I mentioned occurred millions of years ago and is found in Psalm 109. There is a great distinction between the pre-adamic flood and Noah’s flood. Jer 4:25-26 says “I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.” Here we see two things. I know that Jeremiah was not talking about Noah’s flood because Noah’s flood destroyed humanity but not vegetation (fruitful place). If Noah’s flood made the fruitful place- a wilderness, then how come the dove that he sent brought him an olive leaf? Genesis 8:11 says “And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.” So, If we agree that Jer 4:25 is referring to the flood before Adam and not Noah’s, then what cities is he talking about on Verse 26? That gives us a big hint that nation existed before that flood. In addition, Psalm 104:7 speaking of Adam’s flood, says “At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.” Noah’s flood was never rebuked but Adam’s was.
Isaiah 24:1 says “Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.”Now let’s pause for a minute. Is there any event where the earth was empty after Adam? Did Noah’s flood empty the earth? Of course not! Noah, his wife and his children’s wives were still alive on earth. Genesis 8:16-17 says “Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee. Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.”
to be continued..

Mirre said...

Continued, Part 2
Has the earth ever turned upside down after Adam’s creation? The bible does not say so. Has Noah’s flood ever scattered the inhabitants? Never. Job 9:5 “Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his anger” Again, this never happened after Adam, so this particular event that is mentioned in these portions of the bible must be must have happened before adam. Another remarkable portion of the bible that gives us valuable information concerning this issue is found in Job 9 verses 6,7&8 where it says,” Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble. Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.” TIM. The earth was shaken, pillars trembled, the Sun does not rise, the stars were sealed, heavens were spread out and finally, God treads upon the waves of the sea (FLOOD). So, do you mind if we go back to Gen 1:2-3, and read it says “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” I’m sure you got it! Now, all the previous scriptures I mentioned answers all the questions we have on this verse. Why was the earth without form? Because of the flood (Psalm 109). Why was darkness upon the face of the deep? Because God had commanded the sun not to rise (Job9:7). Therefore, the sun wasn’t created in the same week Adam was created; the sun was created many millions of years ago. That’s why God said, ”Let there be light”. The word “Let” is not a word of creation, rather a word of Permission. He was simply permitting the sun to give light. Gen 1:6 “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.” Why weren’t the waters gathered together unto one place? Because God trod upon the waves of the sea-flood (Psalm 109,Job 9). Now this is Interesting, Gen 1:11 says “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.” Why was God permitting the earth to bring forth grass and fruit? Remember Jer 4:26? “I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness….” Because the fruitful place turned into a wilderness as a result of the flood. Isn’t that interesting? Now all the questions we have about dinosaurs, fossils etc.. can be answered through this precious word of the living God. Did dinosaurs exist? Of course, but all perished by the flood and that’s why scientists are still puzzled to this day why they couldn’t find any living dinosaur. How precious this book is? How precious the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is? Just as the bible is accurate about the past, it’s also accurate about the future that it’s more updated than tomorrow’s newspaper. The Apostle Peter understood all this and that’s why he wrote and said “Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished”.
Thank you so much for reading and I hope you will be blessed by it !
Glory be to the most High !

Anonymous said...

This may sound ridiculous. But I'm having a debate with my communications proffesor at my college about whether the Earth is 4.6 by or for him: 4.45-4.55. Is there any way exactly to know if it is indeed 4.6?

Anonymous said...

Mirre, I am perplexed about the events you are pointing out in Isaiah & Jeremiah. Are you saying these guys wrote before Adam & Eve were created?

A couple more thoughts:
(ME=Macro-evolution, mE=Micro-evolution)
1. If ME happened, then at what point would Adam and Eve be created in "the image of God"?
2. IF ME happened, then why do we have so many varieties of animals (both simpler and more complex forms)? Would they not have evolved into higher species (ie 2nd Law)?

Curious & enjoy this article.

Jeff Korhorn said...

ooops, The above commend is from me.

ricardo said...

if your right about the earth being 4.6 billion years old and not 6 to 10 thousand years old no problem, And if you beleive there is no hell and your right no problem again but and if hell does exist how long do you think that you will be there for?

Anonymous said...

That's what we call Pascal's Wager, which is not an argument on truth.

Anonymous said...

Pascals wager isnt effective simply because all the other religions out there. What makes you think that yours is right Ricardo?

Wikus Koen said...

Hi there
To me this is all very simple. We all agree to the given speed of light,right? we also seem to agree that the suns light takes eight minutes to reach earth, right? So if the whole universe and everything in it was created a mere 6000 - 10000 years ago, then where does the light from stars and galaxies that's twenty and thirty and forty thousand lightyears away, come from? Shouldn't there then be nothing visible beyond ten thousand lightyears? If God wanted to create everything through evolution, so what? It is God after all, He can do what he wants!!

roger rocket said...

We see in the last 5 years some new research which shows beta decay is not the constant we once thought it was. I have a link to what I think is a fairly reputable source:
So now, do we know that radioactive decay is the same constant within the Earths atmosphere as it is in outer space? Can we get a link on that research? And if there is a difference, than how do we know that the Earths atmosphere hasn't had any changes in its long history that could have caused a change in these types of decay? To me, the conclusions of a 4.5 billion year old Earth is something I'm open minded to analyze, but seems to be assumptive in that these constants have always been the same without knowing if there have been changes in the Sun or Earths atmosphere. Thanks for considering any of my post.

Corey Stein said...

So now, after one month you have no ability to refute my claim. The facts are that a 4.5 billion year old universe is about as accurate and scientifically provable as saying the universe is 100 million years old. You do not know that. Nuclear decay is not the constant it once was thought. Humans do not know everything and one thing they do not know is how old the Earth is or the Universe is. As egotistical as they would like to be the facts are that we simply do not know. Any school who teaches "X happened Y million or billion years ago" is a religion based on faith unless they say, "X POSSIBLY happened Y million or billion years ago" which I'm totally open minded about. But to state it as a fact with no real scientific testable observable evidence is a cult-like religion. Thanks for your time.