Changes

{{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 6,000 or less than 10,000 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>

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 or less than 10,000 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>. Meanwhile, Dr. Walt Brown rightly notes: "Dr. John Sanford has shown that mutations occur at such a rapid rate that “mutational meltdown” would have occurred if humans were only 100,000 years old. “Genetic entropy” is pushing mankind toward extinction.d"<ref>https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences9.html</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>https://www.icr.org/article/nuclear-decay-evidence-for-young-world</ref><ref>https://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>https://www.icr.org/article/nuclear-decay-evidence-for-young-world</ref><ref>https://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>