The earth is only 6000 years old??

In this video I will be discussing the statement that the earth is on 6000 years old. This statement is obviously untrue all we need to do is look to science for the answer.

Science through the technique of radiometric dating have discovered that the earth is in fact around 4.5 billion years old.

Creationists will often state that current techniques such as carbon dating etc are incorrect and flawed, and as usual they make these claims with absolutely no evidence that their statement is even remotely true. They may point to a single contaminated subject and claim that this proves it is unreliable.

This however is false, let me try to explain how radiometric dating works.

Rock minerals naturally contain certain elements and not others. By the process of radioactive decay of radioactive isotopes occurring in a rock, exotic elements can be introduced over time. By measuring the concentration of the stable end product of the decay, coupled with knowledge of the half life and initial concentration of the decaying element, the age of the rock can be calculated. Typical radioactive end products are argon from potassium-40 and lead from uranium and thorium decay. If the rock becomes molten, as happens in Earth's mantle, such nonradioactive end products typically escape or are redistributed. Thus the age of the oldest terrestrial rock gives a minimum for the age of Earth assuming that a rock cannot have been in existence for longer than Earth itself..

So radiometric dating doesnt simply test one elements but many.

Since we can test many different substances in one piece of rock this also allows us to compare the results, if 20 different substances are analysed and each one gives the same age we can be fairly certain that the age given is accurate. This is why radiometric dating is used, it is not simply one test but many different test which all provide the same answer.

Radiometric dating is based on very sound scientific princiapals and had been fine tuned for the last 50 years to ensure that samples are not contaminated and that results are accurate.

If you want to know more about radiometric dating then check out the wikipedia entry, I would always recommend wikipedia because it can and does have some rubbish on it, but in this case the facts are all there.

So please rate comment and thanks for watching.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• atheism
• christianity
• jesus
• christ
• god
• religion
• prayer
• evolution
• creationism
• creationist
• science
• theory
• darwin
• education
• debate
• bible
• fossils
• evidence
• light
• speed
• universe
• creation
• atheist
• theist
• titus
• chapter
• verse

[GeserRC]

I think, the Earth is older but 6000 years. Most likely its ca. 7500 years old.

[ThatAtheistGuy20]

@GeserRC Oh great, any particular reason or just because it feels right?

[golbert1993]

lmao at this video...carbon dating is in accurate...the earth i not 6000 years old who knw how old it is who df cares u will never truly knw

[JoanneLez]

The nearest galaxy is 60,000 light years away. If the universe is only 6000 years old, how can we see it?

[TheoryOfThought]

@johnnytheprick I would think the statement I made that you quoted shows my understanding of the very expression you question whether I've ever heard. The science of today builds on what they knew from the past, and improves, therefore becoming different. Perhaps you are merely upset at my use of the word 'history'?

Sure, we might still be wrong, but we're getting closer. And we give room for error, we call it an approximate age now.

[ThatAtheistGuy20]

@johnnytheprick What a suitable name.

[johnnytheprick]

@GeserRC

it is, its exactly 9,456,000,345 years 11 months, 6 hours and 19 minutes at the time of writing........give or take 15 minutes. thats as accurate i can get without jumping into my time machine. its in the shop til tuesday though, something about the flux capacitor leaking dark matter.

[johnnytheprick]

@TheoryOfThought

".......but the science of today is different that the science of history." - ever heard or read the expression: "those who dont learn from the past, are bound to repeat it"?

reading your statement, can you see the error in your ways?

[mrhyde2484]

circular reasoning

[TheoryOfThought]

@KesslersCross There is some merit in what you say, but the science of today is different that the science of history. Scientific methods have been refined, and theories are tested again and again. Science does it's utmost to prove itself wrong. With discoveries in the future, what we believe is right may be false, true, but those false beliefs we believe in today are based on the evidence we currently have. As long as somebody is willing to explore further evidence when it appears...