According to god how old is the earth

The website suggests that since scientists were not present at the time of the formation of those rocks, they cannot know exactly what happened and cannot try to understand. With this, as they try to discount radiometric dating as evidence since we were not around back then, they invalidate their own argument as they suggest that we should accept the words of the Bible as evidence.

We certainly were not alive when the Bible was written either. The point is that science uses an enormous array of techniques and methods that supports one another, providing sound evidence that the earth is billions of years old, rather than a mere 6, years. AIG fails to use good science because their only arguments are to use scientifically-inaccurate claims to try to disprove scientific methods. In their attempt to do this, they fail to provide any proof or evidence of their own to demonstrate the earth is only 6, years as they claim.

In fact, they invalidate their own argument in their attempt. Nature: Molecular Clock Methods. Many are the examples of tests performed by different labs on the same specimens which produced radically different results. There are instances of dating methods being used on volcanic rock formed within the last years which produced results indicating many thousands of years of age.

One of the curious things about dating methods that purport to discover millions of years of aging is that they depend on a principle that seems to run counter to another dearly held modern idea: evolution. They depend on uniformitarianism. They must assume that forces of nature and physical laws have continued unchanged for millions and billions of years. The processes of decay the dating methods measure must be entirely uniform and subject to the same forces we find in our world now or the methods would produce entirely unpredictable and unreliable results.

So these dating methods must assume the universe we observe now is operating the same as it was billions of years ago. Yet there is no currently observable law or process that allows, much less explains, the process of evolution.

No law of nature we observe now remotely resembles what would be necessary to take elements in chaos and organize them into life, nor do we observe any law or force of nature that explains simplicity turning itself into complexity let alone the complexity of life. In fact, the laws and forces that we do observe in our universe demand the opposite result.

Energy always dissipates. Nothing tends toward greater complexity but always deteriorates. If evolution is true, whatever forces and laws of nature that account for its occurrence are not now present. There has, therefore, not been a uniformity over the alleged billions of years. Scientists cannot have it both ways.

We cannot assume uniformity in the process of aging and deterioration for billions of years and insist that processes of evolution were at the same time active. As William Henry Green wrote, "The Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.

In other words, even if Ussher's calculation were correct it isn't it would only tell us when Abraham lived, not when the world was made. But even this doesn't matter, for as Thomas Paine reminded us, the only revelation we can really trust is the creation itself. When nature disagrees with scripture, scripture must necessarily be wrong. But here's the thing, the dendrochronologic record--last I checked--now goes back 12, years in some parts of the world. You don't trust radiometric dating?

Buy a magnifying class and a box of Twinkies and visit a dendro lab. Tree rings form a unique fingerprint as trees across a region are exposed to similar conditions.

For this reason, overlapping ring patterns from living, dead, and fossilized trees can be lined up to build continuous series stretching back through thousands and thousands of years. No fancy science required. And at a certain point, the dendro dates line up with ocean core dates and pack ice dates, both of which go back hundreds of thousands of years--but that might take a little scientific know how. Easier are simple geologic strata:. Those lines are sedimentation lines that form 40 major layers spanning 2 billion years of deposition.

Okay, you might need a degree in geology to tell desert sand deposition from silt and to follow the series around the West to account for disconformities, but even a casual, unbiased evaluation will convince you utterly of two things: 1 The canyon was laid down by erosion through ancient sediments, not cut by any flood, and 2 those sediments were laid down over many, many, many millions of years.

And that's just scratching the surface, so to speak. Even the Pope knows the Earth is 4. When you accept it and start studying the data, you'll discover something important.

Many of those loudly proclaiming a young Earth these days must unavoidably understand how far their claims are from what the Earth really tells us--but they keep on saying it anyway, and selling books and lecture tickets. I wonder why they would do that? This question originally appeared on Quora.