How can you prove how old the earth is?

Love it.
Sorry man but it seems as though the bible IS indeed; filled with contradictions, DOES state the impossible, possible, and IS used as a tool for power and control.

I don't understand how a person can have access to archives such as the hubble deep field and still think with such obvious errors in logic , doesn't that like, make you WANT to read up on some of the things you're being told? GB's on GB's of data, that you can LITERALLY have beamed to your phone, that will show you for your own two eyes, billions of galaxies that clearly were not formed anytime in the last few millenia............... Lmao

 

With radiometric dating, there has to be a process that was not or is not affected by any outside or inside influences. The process has to be unhindered in development and is separate from outside factors. Meaning, those samples taken had to have been in a glass box or something like that, with no environment and nothing going on. And this process would have to be like that for your 4 BILLION years. Henry Faul said this, ""Uranium and lead both migrate (in shales) in geologic time, and detailed analyses have shown that useful ages cannot be obtained with them. Here again much chemical activity is known to take place and widely diverging ages can be measured on samples from the same spot."
To translate, he is saying Uranium never exist in a closed system/area.

To prove that the Bible is a historical document, ill go through a few things.

1. The discovery of Davids palace in 2005, and in 1993 the discovery of an ancient mount in North of Israel saying House of David and King of Israel.

2. R.D. Wilson who wrote “A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament” pointed out that the names of 29 Kings from ten nations (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and more) are mentioned not only in the Bible but are also found on monuments of their own time. Every single name is transliterated in the Old Testament exactly as it appears on the archaeological artifact – syllable for syllable, consonant for consonant. The chronological order of the kings is correct.

3. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68, included a copy of every Old Testament book except for one. Comparison with the texts of a thousand years later shows little or no variation and change between them. What this points to is to the poster that said Bible has been changed so much....

4.Norman Geisler explains Ezekiel's prediction that the city of Tyre "would be destroyed and its ruins cast into the sea (26:2). This provoked scoffing because, when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Tyre, he left the ruins right where they fell -- on the land. But 200 years later, Alexander the Great attacked Tyre and the inhabitants withdrew to an island just off the coast for safety. In order to reach them, Alexander threw all of the debris, stones, timbers, dust, and everything else, into the sea to build a causeway that would reach the island." [6] If events so far in the future can be accurately predicted, certainly the events of the past have been accurately recorded!

5. The internal evidence test reveals the Bible's amazing consistency. The Bible was written by over 40 authors, in 3 languages, on 3 continents, over a span of 1,500 years, and covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, the authors all spoke with agreement; there are no contradictions. [5] From Genesis to Revelation, there is one unfolding story -- God's redemption of mankind.

6. For the New Testament, Dr. G.R. Habermas points out that within 110 years of Christ's crucifixion, approximately eighteen non-Christian sources mention more than "one hundred facts, beliefs, and teachings from the life of Christ and early Christendom. These items, I might add, mention almost every major detail of Jesus' life, including miracles, the Resurrection, and His claims to deity." [4] Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archeologists to ever live, demonstrated that Luke made no mistakes in references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands.

7. Critics used to say that the biblical description of the Hittite Empire was wrong because the Hittite Empire (they though) didn't even exist! Then archaeologists discovered the Hittite capital in 1906 and discovered that the Hittite's were actually a very vast and prominent civilization. Archaeological and linguistic evidence is increasingly pointing to a sixth-century B.C. date for the book of Daniel, in spite of the many critics who attempt to late-date Daniel and make it a prophecy after the detailed events it predicts.

8. Since the bible IS a historical document and is validated by secularist persons, I will say again, the earth is 6000 years old through the genealogy of the old testament (Genesis).

I would like to state, please give me FACTS for proving that any of these radiometric dating systems work.

 

Emmanuel=God

Father, Son, Holy Spirit

 

Please expound on that.

 

I also like to point out, Sythe said the earth is around 2 billion years old, TV said millions, Hexium said 4.6 billion. which is it?

 

Just because some parts of the bible have been 'validated by secularist persons' doesn't lend any credence to the fact that all of the bible is valid and an accurate source of information.

I'll make it very simple. If I were to write a 10 page book, each page on different explanations/recounts of phenomenon/events that transpired. Let's say 9 of those were factual, for example, all humans have a brain. However, one of them was entirely wrong, for example, humans were able to teleport from place to place in the year 2011. Now, If I were to garner 9 experts to validate by other 9 pages, does that therefore mean the 10th and incorrect page is true? No, it does not. Does the bible have some accurate information in it? Sure. Is it filled with inaccurate information? Yes, it is. Is the 6,000 year old Earth one of these inaccuracies? Yes.

Radiometric dating would be far too complex to explain to you, given your false leaps in logic above. I'll disprove the 6,000 year old story with something far FAR simpler.

Trees! In fact, a 12 year old could oversee this experiment; it's that simple.

What happens when you cut a tree open? You see growth rings. 1 ring represents 1 year. If you want more on this, look at Dendrochronology. Cutting to the chase, if you piece together the growth lines, you will get an age of the earth to be at least, well over 6,000 years old. If you have any contention with this, say so.


By claiming that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, you are refuting the accepted age of the Solar System by scientists, 4,550,000,000. You are almost off by 1 in 1,000,000.

Putting this in perspective: If I told you that your heart only beats once a week and I was 100 percent sure of this, you'd call me stupid right? That degree of stupidity is what most people think about Early-Earth Creationists. We know that our hearts beat many more times than once a week. How? Through observations. We know the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. How? Through observations.

 

Wikipedia is absolutely a source and a good one at that. For one thing why would we take your affirmation when the ones who edit Wikipedia and or maintain wikipedia are ones who went to a 4 year college, THEN went and received a Phd. No other sources are needed, Wikipedia is like a textbook that it's genius some will never understand. Ignorance in one sentence. Wow.

 

What are the untrue things and how is the Bible not a historical document? Why is it over a billion people follow this book. Are we all just that delusional?

Interesting about the tree, you might find this to be ludicrous, but how many lines are there and how can you prove that those lines are real, not the making of some scientists. What I mean, scientists used different bones to make it look like apes were humans. They did that to prove evolution. Need sources?

Through observation, I have come to realize than an intelligent being created this planet. How? Complexity. I don't believe random chance created this planet, theoretically impossible. Yes, it does take a leap of faith to believe that, but it takes even more faith to believe in random chance that everything aligned together perfectly with no designer and no plan.

Also, how did things get moving? So, the whole universe has been at a stand still before then...for infinity, but then, everything decided to get created at exactly 4.55 billion years? The universe had to have a mover, things just don't get pushed by nothing. It's just like a car. You need an intelligent being to take they key, know which key it is, put it in the ignition, start it, put it into reverse, then drive, and thats when it gets going. Thats the same with the universe and the earth. Some intelligent being had to put things into motion.

 

Just adding Wikipedia is NOT a source, all university's and college's will not let you use quotes from Wiki due to the fact of inconsitency's.

ANYONE can go on wiki and edit information to suit their needs.

 

Carbon dating is the best way, we know how old dinosaurs are and anything else we find.

 

First just because a billion people follow the bible does not make it true.

A stupid idea followed by one person or a billion people is still a stupid idea. (Not saying the bible is stupid) So that argument you used is invalid.


Second the tree ring thing. If you don't believe it go cut a smaller tree down and you will see the rings for yourself. I promise that scientist didn't go in your back yard and tamper with your trees.

I honestly think your being a dick about this. The world is older than 6000 years. You say that the bible says the world is 6000 years old, correct? Well were the people in the Old Testament walking around with dinosoures?

 

You completely misinterpreted everything we said. I said they've found rocks and fossils millions of years old. Sythe said the continents we stand on are 2 billion years old (the continents formed after the Earth).
Hexium did in fact say it's 4.6 billion years old because that's the generally accepted age for the Earth.

 

I dare you too prove this entire website wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

 

O, I don't know, Noah's Ark for one... The WHOLE Genesis story for another. Also, just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's true - this is known as the Appeal to Popularity Fallacy. So, yes, you may be delusional.

It is impossible to prove a negative, but, what evidence do you have for millions of scientists world wide to conspire against religion in God, some of these scientists are actually religious as well! As for the ape thing, that point is irrelevant as there is not only 1 piece of evidence to support evolution. Evolution is not about apes turning into Humans.

So, this is the fine-tuning argument. You're basically saying the Earth is so 'perfect' for our human survival and existence were if any of the cosmological constants were adjusted, life as we know it (humans) would not survive. Correct?

This argument is ridiculous. This is already an argument from ignorance, but, let's disregard that...

Let's take away all the animals on this Earth that want to eat us; try live in the African Safari and tell me 'God' wants you to live. Let's ignore all the bacteria, all the insects, all the natural disasters, let's ignore the plethora of other organisms and events that can, and will kill us. Do you know what percentage of the Earth is hospitable for life? 0.50~ %. Looks like 'God' did a poor job, considering we can only live on 1/200 of this majestic and wondrous garden! Don't worry though, we can live in other places of the Universe right? No. Someone else has done the calculations. The percentage of hospitable places in this universe, for human life is:

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073%. Good job 'God', what an oasis! This is like saying that 6 million swimming pools that can only hold 1 molecule of water are 'fine-tuned' for water storage. There are many more examples, but, don't you realize how preposterous this argument is?

I'm sorry, the Universe is generally accepted to be 13.7 billion years old, the Solar System however is 4.55 billion years old.

This would be the first cause argument. Your basically saying that everything has a cause, correct? What about 'God'. Why does he have no cause? Why is there Special Pleading there? You assert that 'God' is the first cause, yet, you propose presumably self-refuting argument; what caused God? To the same, I could say Natural Forces created the Universe.

While this is currently being worked on in the scientific community - they are not making stuff up... The 'existence exists' axiom covers this very very well. It's true that there must/should be a first cause as things don't infinite regress. Without going into detail, the IMO most logical answer is that existence has always existed. This can be debated a priori if you really want.


Now, all the way back to my tree point. Dendrochronology is an accurate and accepted dating tool. It has dated things to be over 10,000 years old. This defies the 6,000 year old theory. You can say scientists made it up, though, you would need evidence to support it. Do you have any, or are you essentially being a hypocrite.

 

This isn't valid to the argument. Yes it proves him wrong in some ways, but don't just link something that you Google. This is the first link you found.

 

You act as if I didn't look at other links as well. Google " How do you determine the age of the earth? ". That is indeed the first link that pops up, for a reason, its full of information. More so then the other links.

If hes so determined to prove countless scientist wrong, then he has some reading to do. Im simply directing him where to start.

 

Please back-up the evidence behind the text from the Bible.

OT: I view the earth to be millions of years old.

 

Its not valid because you did not contribute anything to the argument. Simply posting a link to a website doesn't prove anything. How do we know you even understand it? No saying you don't, but in a discussion you say something and back it up with sources, not just post a link. That doesn't do anything for this argument.

 

It seems to me that you are questioning your faith by asking this question. Why would you come here to ask others what they think, if you KNOW the "truth"?