How old is the Earth?

[Statler Waldorf]

Premise: Decay rates indicate that the Earth is ancient.

It seems to me that what you are surmising is that decay rates were massively accelerated right up to the point where science started observing and detecting them thus giving the impression that a 10,000 year old Earth was really 4.5 billion years old.

If this where the case then wouldn't most of the Earth's (short) history be incredibly radioactive?

Not really what I am saying. Decay rates have changed, we know this because different isochronic methods of dating yield different dates for the same rock. If decay rates were always constant each isochron should yield the same age, they don't. The biggest factor that would skew radiometric dating would be the presence of daughter elements at the time of Creation. This is why radiometric dating cannot be used to "disprove" a young Earth, it assumes something that would not be true if the Earth was young. Try and date a person (using their height and weight) using the same assumptions radio-metric dating uses and I guarantee your conclusion will be way off. Thanks for being civil though, makes thing way more fun I think.

---

Statler, you really should consider ending your argument because it is looking very foolish right now. First of all, his claim was that he could measure the circumference of the Earth with a yardstick (something anyone who knows how can do), not determine his longitude and latitude (which can also be done using simple tools). Secondly, any objective person would see creationism for what it truly is - an attempt to get the scientifically illiterate to believe that the Flintstones is a documentary. Scientists don't always agree. I would be concerned if they did. But there is no controversy to teach with regard to the age of the Earth, the theory of Evolution, or most other scientific theories. The world scientific community is in broad agreement on these issues.

As for your government science job, you still haven't told us what discipline it is in, and in what capacity you are working for us taxpaying citizens, or why we should believe you.

---

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

No scientific endeavor is 100% accurate. But I do find it ironic that you insist on 100% accuracy when it comes to scientific claims, and yet would insist that we believe that "god did it" based on no evidence at all.

Haha, if my argument is foolish then I am sure you will be glad to enlighten us as to how you can deterimine the circumfrence of the Earth by only using a yard stick. Remember, only a yard stick.

I don't require 100 percent, just when someone mis-uses the word "proof" to mean something that is not 100 percent I will call them on it every time.

Nobody thinks the Flintstones is a documentary, that's like saying people who believe in life existing on other planets (i.e. Dawkins) think E.T. is a documentary. Funny how you guys only seem to be able to make your case by using strawman arguments. That is almost always the sign of a shaky position.