How old do you think Earth is? Why?
Consensus among scientists from different fields of studies says that the age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years.
But it's not that I "think", you cannot "guess" the age of the world. You need evidence. it's the result of measures done by hundreds of scientists, with hundreds of experiments. And they are all consistent with each other (minus the margin of error stated before).
The scientific model is based on the idea that certain things in the universe have been going on throughout all time, similarly as they are going on today. Take carbon dating, for example.
Carbon dating is based on the idea that the C-14 content on earth, in the atmosphere, has been relatively the same for at least hundreds of thousands of years. But nobody knows that this is the fact. If the amount of C-14 forming, has been increasing very slowly over the years - so slowly that nobody could see or measure the increase - there is the potential that there was little to no C-14 back beyond 5,000 years ago. This would mean that carbon dating numbers are extremely far off... by as much as millions or billions of years. And this kind of mistaken thinking is the same kind that permeates virtually all of the scientific thinking on the dating subject.
The furthest science can go back with any accuracy at all is about 4,500 years. And even this is shaky. It is based on dating pottery and buildings from the distant past. Comparing the writings of ancient peoples and nations from beyond 3,000 years ago shows discrepancies in the writings that indicate that we don't know how to read dead languages correctly, or else the people of those days wrote historical fiction like we write science fiction today.
On the other hand, Moses lived and wrote 3,500 to 3,600 years ago. He had been a prince of Egypt, with access to whatever writings this great nation had back then. We can trust his writings because of the stubbornness of ancient Israel. This stubbornness is born out in the writings of the scribes of Israel. Bible books from the Dead Sea scrolls of over 2,000 years ago, are essentially the same as they are in our modern Bibles.
This means that we can place faith in the things that Moses wrote for us in the first 5 books of the Bible, way more than we can place faith in the writings of today's scientists. In fact, today's scientists tell us right in their writings that they are actually guessing as to the age of things.
The point is, the earth and universe are less than 7,000 years old, and probably only 6,200 years old. See
http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm for how this is calculated out in the Bible. If the universe is much older than 6,200 years, the age cannot be calculated, because time and the space-time continuum operated differently before that time.
Wow this is some good bullshit right here lol. So if the Universe is 7000 years old how do you explain the fact that there is light that we see from other stars that took longer than 7, 000 years to reach us. (on that note your entire creationist blog that you just wrote for us has been debunked)
the point is science is more than just carbon dating alone, its carbon dating combined with multiple other sciences that we base our facts on. Science facts do not get formed from people inferring things after only viewing one piece of scientific evidence, that is what you just did and accused scientists of doing. (pot calling the kettle black over here)
Parable: When a car manufacture builds a car, what does he do? He builds the parts and puts them together. It isn't a car until it is completely built. Until it is finished, it is just a compilation of parts.
As far as light from other stars...
When you examine standard understanding of fossilization, the standard minimum time that it takes to fossilize something is 10,000 years in the understanding of science. But, you will find all kinds of records of things and people that have fossilized in well under 100 years... if you look for them.
The point? Science doesn't know how fossilization works. And they definitely don't know how it worked in the past. So, why would they know how light worked in the past? Even now there is strong evidence - maybe even proof - that light isn't the constant that has long been thought. Research it.
Cause and effect probably is NOT the greatest law of nature. But it absolutely is a very penetrating one. It is seen all over the place, and there is no evidence of something that does not owe its existence to cause and effect. Yet, we have no evidence whatsoever of something that started cause and effect to begin.
Does there have to be a beginning to cause and effect? Yes! Entropy is a law that is possibly more penetrating than cause and effect. If there were no beginning, entropy would have dissipated all things into a massive, "equilibrium" of what?... long ago. There would be almost absolutely no complexity at all.
Big Bang? BB is theory that only suggests something. Such a thing as BB might have any number of things that could have effected the theory to make it nonsense... things which are not taken into account. After all, there are at least 3 BB Theories that are different from each other in subtle ways.
The point? Because we don't know what happened in the past scientifically, we don't know which things were true in the past and which weren't.
The Bible record is the best record of the past that we have. Why? It is conscientiously written and copied records of people who were there. Study it, and the nation of Israel, and see what sticklers for perfection the people of Israel are and were, especially for copying the Bible record perfectly.
Maybe more or less 10,000 years. I guess.
