How old is the Earth?

[Statler Waldorf]

Haha wow you really are all over the place aren't you? Throwing around light theory mixed in with the Doctrines of Grace and John Calvin. This must be the ADHD method of discussion haha. Actually many Scientists are moving away from the Isotropic Light Model because it provides a lot of time problems for the big bang. I think the an-isotropic model is a more valid model. Which can be summed up by the Astrophysicist Robert Newton as follows...

Granted I'm not fully nuanced as far as what is and isn't popular in science today, but I'm fairly (read: fully) certain that people who study things that involves the speed of light still agree with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which explicitly states what the speed of light can and cannot be, which is still quite the foundation of modern physics as it has always been in the past century or so.
I'm also quite certain that a variable speed of light is not accepted among the scientific body becuase of all the other laws of physics that would violate that have been proven empirically time and time again.
Astronomy, which is extremely consistent and extremely precise in measuring these little details absolutely depend on relativity and each discovery is a result of the correctitiude of Einstein's theorum.
Whatever 'astrophysicists' you've drudged up to say otherwise are wrong and can easily be proven as such. The videos I've linked on the Young Earth thread you posted proves that beyond a reasonable doubt as does high school and college physics.

So this would mean that whenever you observe something happen in Space it actually just happened, rather than 13 billion years ago or however many light-years the object is away. This model holds up in all the tests so it really is an exciting new approach.

What tests? The actual experts in this field and the people who observe space for a living all seem to think that light travels at a constant speed, which is consistent with all observations everywhere at any time with a consistency greater than virtually anything else that has ever been observed in the universe to the point to where we can measure the different speeds in which waves of light travel within light itself, like a ripple in a pond.
That is how precise our measurements are.

That assumes an isotropic propagation of light. Which of course is an Old-Earth presuppostion.

Which is once again, based on empirical evidence.

Well you have emperical evidence to support a conclusion. You do not have emperical proof that your conclusion is one hundred percent accurate.

Nothing is one hundred percent accurate. Ever.
Claims to the contrary is something that religion does erroneously.

I don't think you get it. The An-isotropic Propagation of Light Model is completely consistant with Albert's Theories. You cannot prove one of the two models to be correct because emperical proof requires direct observation and the two models appear identical to the observer, that's the point. Like I said early, many are moving towards the newer model because it solves a lot of time problems fo the Big Bang theory. However, it also makes it so that you can know longer use Starlight to date the Universe, bummer dude.

The youtube (seriously? youtube?) video you posted dealt with "C-decay", which has nothing to do with An-Isotropic Propagation of Light. So you missed the mark on that one.

The Astrophysicist I quoted IS an expert and HAS spent his career observing the stars, so you didn't prove anything there.

You said, "Nothing is one hundred percent accurate. Ever." Is this statement not 100 % accurate then? :-)

---

The assumption that decay rates have remained the same is based on sound science; namely, that we have done numerous things to radioactive materials (increased pressure, temperature, etc) and the decay rates has stayed the same.

What we should be asking is what evidence you provide that suggests the Earth is 6,000 years old (or however old you think it is). I only say 6,000 since you mentioned you believe God made it in 6 days, and when someone says that, they are usually a YEC.

I should also point out that you seem to misunderstand what an Ad Hominem attack is. If you insult someone in the middle of discourse, it is an insult, not an Ad Hominem. An Ad Hominem only occurs when you attempt to use the insult to somehow attack your opponent's argument (i.e. "You can't believe what he says because he's a moron.").

Well if the Earth is really 4.5 billion years old then you cannot "observe" that decay rates are constant because yoru observation is vastly too small and insignificant compared to the whole time period. Even if you could observe it for 100 years it would still only be 2.2X10^-11 percent of the total time. Even a curved line looks straight when you only observe an insignificant portion of it. So you're going to have to provide some other backing as to how you know those rates are constant.

How old do you think the earth is?

Between 6000 and 7000 years.