Changes
Reverted edits by [[Special:Contributions/Shaghshshs|Shaghshshs]] ([[User talk:Shaghshshs|talk]]) to last revision by [[User:AK|AK]]
{{See also|Counterexamples to an Old Earth}}
The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. No All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. Yet with common sense circular reasoning and actual researchimplausible assumptions, smart people have found out [[liberals]] insist that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 10<sup>9</sup> ± 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>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>
