Earth is older then 6000 years old.

Hello, glad to discuss the topic. I noticed your points merely describe observations, tectonic movement, the speed of light and the vast distances of stars relative to our planet. You state these observations as evidence for a 4.5 billion year old Earth assuming that the creation model has no answer for these. I will address your two main points and then maybe provide some evidence of my own that the Earth is indeed closer to 6,000 years old. By the way, no informed biblical creationist says the Earth is exactly 6,000 years old; it may be 7,000, but it is definitely not anywhere near 4.5 billion years old. So now that we are hopefully clear on that... 1.) You posit the fact of tectonic plate movement as evidence of an old Earth. I believe there is good evidence the continents were once part of a super-continent, although not necessarily Pangaea. Your problem is assuming the continents took a long time to break apart and spread out to what we see today. This of course is easily described as the result of a catastrophic event in the biblical creation model known as "the Flood." The Bible actually describes a super-continent at creation (Genesis 1:9). This super-continent, lets call it Eden, would have been broken up as the "fountains of the deep" broke through the crust of the Earth (Genesis 7:11). So I hold that the vast majority of the movement of tectonic plates took place within a few decades after the Flood, and you say it took millions of years. Well how do we settle the discrepancy? By looking at the evidence that supports the creation model. Evidence for the Flood as the causal agent of rapid tectonic movement includes: thick continental sediment sequences of vast horizontal extent such as the Grand Canyon, cold ocean floor crustal slabs above the mantle core boundaries, and erratic, lateral magnetic stripes as a result of rapid geomagnetic field reversals due to accelerated convection in the core caused by rapid subduction of the cooler pre-Flood ocean floor into the mantle. (creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter11.pdf) You also might be interested in the research of Dr. John Baumgardner. I posted a video of him discussing evidence for the flood with an emphasis in plate tectonics. http://www.youtube.com... 2.) The speed of light is a poor argument for an old Earth for three reasons: one, the Earth can be young in an old universe, two, this assumes creation cosmologies have not accounted for the speed of light in relation to the vast distances of stellar bodies relative to Earth, and three, light-travel-time is a problem even for the secular standard model (Lambda-CDM) which is commonly described as the "horizon problem" (http://creation.com...). There are a few creation cosmologies which I am aware of, including the models of Dr. John Hartnett, Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. Robert Gentry, but I rather support Dr. Russell Humphreys particular cosmological model which involves Einstein's theory of relativity and gravitational time dilation. You can read about this model here: (http://creation.com...). So your argument is moot. Also, you state that the furthest star we can see is 4.5Blys away; this is incorrect. The furthest celestial object found is a galaxy (which has stars) found in the Hubble eXtreme Deep Field (XDF) image which is >13Blys away, so your argument here is flawed. The distance of stars and the speed of light themselves have nothing to do with the age of the Earth unless you discuss them in the framework of a particular model. Here are two (since you had two) solid evidences of a ~6,000 year old Earth, explained in detail in their respective links: 1.) Helium diffusion rates in zircon crystals found in Precambrian granite (http://www.creationresearch.org...) 2.) Argon diffusion rates in microcline feldspar found in Precambrian granite (http://creation.com...)