The earth is only 6,000 years old and the Bible proves it through science.

I'm glad to hear back from you and thank you for taking the time to debate the topic with me. This is a topic that normally causes people to get upset and start chastising their opponent. I assure you I'm not one of those people. I want people to know that God's word stands firm and has lasted the test of time. Actually, that brings me to my first point...the Bible doesn't say a single thing about radiometric dating, nor should it. This is a historical document written by God's people but inspired by his presence to write exactly what he wants them to. What the Bible DOES do is tell us first hand how the earth and universe were formed and God throughout the Bible gave us chronologies so that we might have a general idea of how old the Earth and Universe are. If you go through and add these chronologies up you'll notice that God says the Universe and Earth are around 6,000 years old. As for the Carbon-14 dating, well and dating method you would like for that matter, all have a massive amount of assumption involved in coming up with a magic number telling how old a specific item is. ASSUMPTION 1: The amount of carbon initially in the atmosphere. ASSUMPTION 2: The amount of carbon initially present in the object being dated. ASSUMPTION 3: The amount of carbon in the object being dated was in no way, shape, or form, increased or decreased due to outside forces. ASSUMPTION 4: There was no daughter atoms were present when the system formed. (Daughter atoms as I'm sure you know, are the material that the carbon-14 decays to. I agree that scientists can take an object to a lab, and very accurately measure the amount of carbon-14, thusly getting an extremely accurate calculation of the age due to the number ASSUMED in the equation. What I DON'T think they can do is guarantee that no outside carbon-14 was added to the object, that they know how much carbon-14 the object started with, or how much carbon-14 was present in the atmosphere at the time. The following website gives a perfect example of why these dating methods aren't accurate. http://www.cs.unc.edu... I could give example after example of known radiometric dating screw ups. I've seen different parts of the same mamoth date at 26,000 and 19,000. I'll work on the reference for this. In closing I'd like to tell you about a friend I have. He's currently working on dating an artifact from a know culture. He is trying to get a date of 3,500 years old for the artifact because that's how old the artifact is assumed to be. He has dated it 19 times and still hasn't got the date he needs and has thus thrown out the first 19 dates he got. I've heard that 50% or more of the dates that are calculated and don't give the answer looked for are thrown out. Don't let anyone tell you that this is an exact science because there are tons of ASSUMPTIONS inolved in these dating methods. R.L. Mauger is an EVOLUTIONIST teacher from East Carolina Univeristy and he says in his book, Contributions to Geology, "In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor or the discrepancies fully explained." An evolutionist knows that these methods are far from accurate. By the way, you were right about the whole rock thing not being relevant in this argument. What I was trying to get acroos is that the entire world once thought that big rocks fell faster than little rocks. The whole world was wrong about this, and I think that sooner or later The Evolution Theory will be another scientific misunderstaning. Also, I would like people to remeber that The Evolution Theory is not a fact and neither is the idea the Earth is millions of years old. Just because the majority believes something, doesn't make it true. (See above mention of big and little rocks, :)