Changes

[[File:Blue Marble.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|The historical and scientific evidence strongly indicates that the [[earth]] is approximately 4.54 billion years old.{{#tag:ref|cf.

[[File:Blue Marble.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|The historical and scientific evidence strongly indicates that the [[earth]] is approximately 6,000 years old.{{#tag:ref|cf.

*Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe<ref name="101Evidences">{{cite web |title=Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe |author=Don Batten |publisher= CMI |date= 4 June 2009 |url=http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth}}</ref>  

*Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe<ref name="101Evidences">{{cite web |title=Age of the earth; 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe |author=Don Batten |publisher= CMI |date= 4 June 2009 |url=http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth}}</ref>  

*How old is the earth?<ref name="RefutingEvo">{{cite book |title=Refuting Evolution; How old is the earth? |author=Jonathan Sarfati |chapter =8 |url=http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth}}</ref>

*How old is the earth?<ref name="RefutingEvo">{{cite book |title=Refuting Evolution; How old is the earth? |author=Jonathan Sarfati |chapter =8 |url=http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth}}</ref>

{{See also|Counterexamples to an Old Earth}}

{{See also|Counterexamples to an Old Earth}}

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 10⁹ ± 1%) old.

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is about 6,000 years old.  Yet with circular reasoning and implausible assumptions, [[liberals]] insist that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 10⁹ ± 1%).<ref name="101Evidences"/><ref name="RefutingEvo"/><ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml polling]</ref>

Old Earth advocates rely on one flawed assumption to the exclusion of other evidence, similar to how an investigator may mistakenly rely on one faulty eyewitness's opinion to the exclusion of all else.  In fact, eyewitness testimony is proven to be less reliable than other indicators, just as the assumption by Old Earth proponents that the [[Radiometric dating|rate of radioactive decay]] has always been constant is flawed. Far from being constant, the rate of radioactive decay would almost certainly slow down as the universe cools.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/nuclear-decay-evidence-for-young-world</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/radioactive-decay-rates-not-stable</ref><ref>https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/the-fallacies-of-radioactive-dating-of-rocks</ref>  At the very least, it is not consistent and easily predictable.<ref>http://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Nuclear_Chemistry/Radioactivity/Radioactive_Decay_Rates</ref>

Old Earth advocates rely on one flawed assumption to the exclusion of other evidence, similar to how an investigator may mistakenly rely on one faulty eyewitness's opinion to the exclusion of all else.  In fact, eyewitness testimony is proven to be less reliable than other indicators, just as the assumption by Old Earth proponents that the [[Radiometric dating|rate of radioactive decay]] has always been constant is flawed. Far from being constant, the rate of radioactive decay would almost certainly slow down as the universe cools.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/nuclear-decay-evidence-for-young-world</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/radioactive-decay-rates-not-stable</ref><ref>https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/the-fallacies-of-radioactive-dating-of-rocks</ref>  At the very least, it is not consistent and easily predictable.<ref>http://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Nuclear_Chemistry/Radioactivity/Radioactive_Decay_Rates</ref>