How old is the earth?

Now i know a lot of topics have already been made about this.  However most of them seem to get off track with discussing.  The only numbers i could find where:
* 6000 years old (by Testify, his source: the bible)
* 2015 years old (by John87, post was made in 2015.  So the earth would now be 2017 years old.  No source/reason given)
* 4,543 x 10^9 +/- 1% years old (by wikipedia, and round earthers on this forum.  Also in some of my schoolbooks)
For the record i believe the last one

Now as i said before a lot of these topic got off track.  So what i'd like to ask is that if you answer you limit your answer to: the age of the earth, and the sources/reasons you have.  I'd like to ask people to not discuss ages with other people.  If you want to, there is a discuss subsection on this forum, please make your own thread there.


Answers from people in this thread:
-Very old (by a FEer)
-Billions of years old (by a FEer)
-4.5 billion years (by a FEer)
-500 years (by a FEer)
-less than 10,000 years old( by a FEer)

-Earth is older than time! (by someone with an, in my opinion, questionable mental status)

-The roundies are all liars.  They got it wrong.  (By a self proclaimed famous FEer)

-500 is a tad short (by a REer)

So what i'd like to ask is that if you answer you limit your answer to: the age of the earth, and the sources/reasons you have.  I'd like to ask people to not discuss ages with other people. 

I'm not entirely sure. I don't think anybody was around that early on. 

There are fossils and rocks that, as far as we can tell through Potassium-Argon radioactive dating, are supposedly hundreds of millions-- if not billions-- of years old. I'll admit that I haven't much of a clue as to how our planar place was formed, but I'll readily defend the notion that it is very old.

How old do you think our disk may be?   

4.5 billion years is OK with me. Why not?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg854193#msg854193
For Sandokhan, 500 years. 100 years before the Flood, 400 after.

On Testify, while that is YE Creationist belief, I wouldn't count them as a serious user:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64586

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg854193#msg854193
For Sandokhan, 500 years. 100 years before the Flood, 400 after.

On Testify, while that is YE Creationist belief, I wouldn't count them as a serious user:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64586

I have been in buildings older than 500 years...
My family house was built around the 1700.
We have documents in storage a thousand years old!

So 500 years is a tad short...

I have no idea who Testify and John87 are. Anyway, I believe the earth is billions of years old.

Nobody asked our ideas. But they are talking instead of us.

Nobody asked our ideas. But they are talking instead of us.

  I'm pretty sure this is a thread in which me, a roundy, is asking flaties, including you, for your ideas.  And in the responses listed in the first message i clearly make a separation between answers from FEers and from REers.

Quote from: İntikam on January 31, 2017, 02:15:45 AM

Nobody asked our ideas. But they are talking instead of us.

  I'm pretty sure this is a thread in which me, a roundy, is asking flaties, including you, for your ideas.  And in the responses listed in the first message i clearly make a separation between answers from FEers and from REers.

Source of answers?

Who are famous flat earth believers here? Me, sceptic, sandokhan,... and a few others. Did you asked it one of us and got an answer? What is your source? If your source is not mine, you can't tell it contain us. Maybe you asked your friend and this is his answer, or fake flat earth believers that there is a lot of them.

So the OP is dishonest. You are writing in the name of flat earth believers that you actually did not ask this question to us. You are a dishonest hypocritical liar.

Quote from: gg1gamer on January 31, 2017, 02:24:57 AM

Quote from: İntikam on January 31, 2017, 02:15:45 AM

Nobody asked our ideas. But they are talking instead of us.

  I'm pretty sure this is a thread in which me, a roundy, is asking flaties, including you, for your ideas.  And in the responses listed in the first message i clearly make a separation between answers from FEers and from REers.

Source of answers?

Who are famous flat earth believers here? Me, sceptic, sandokhan,... and a few others. Did you asked it one of us and got an answer? What is your source? If your source is not mine, you can't tell it contain us. Maybe you asked your friend and this is his answer, or fake flat earth believers that there is a lot of them.

So the OP is dishonest. You are writing in the name of flat earth believers that you actually did not ask this question to us. You are a dishonest hypocritical liar.

Source of answer: the search function of this site.  I'd post a screenshot, but hey, that could be photoshopped.

Why is it my fault you, scepti, sandokhan, ... don't answer?  I didn't know i had to send you a PM begging you to answer.  I thought posing a question in the FLAT EARTH Q&A would do. 

I accuse you of being dishonest (jokingly) so you accuse me of being dishonest?  Fair enough.  But maybe get the facts straight, i am asking you guys right now.

Damn, i gave into it.  I'm not gonna answer any more in this thread as it will only sidetrack it further.  I kindly ask you to just share your views on how old the earth and preferably only this.

It does not cover us, but I will pre-accept it and write accordingly.

Flat earth believers have different scenarios about earth. This shows free mind works on flat earth theory and allows different scenarios.  But everytime good estimates are acceptabled by others. This is a richness.

The rounders/nasa trolls/ fake scientists have the same idea about the age of the world. They have about near estimates about the age of the universe.

Howbeit, the lenght of the universe measured by some of them as older than universe. But this situation did not change their mind.

This acting proves the scientists are saying about same thing while they are know it is wrong.

So we understand that "fake scientists / rounders" defending something which they know it is a lie all together.

Defending a lie by a lot of liars can't convert it as true.

Now i know a lot of topics have already been made about this.  However most of them seem to get off track with discussing.  The only numbers i could find where:
* 6000 years old (by Testify, his source: the bible)
* 2015 years old (by John87, post was made in 2015.  So the earth would now be 2017 years old.  No source/reason given)
* 4,543 x 10^9 +/- 1% years old (by wikipedia, and round earthers on this forum.  Also in some of my schoolbooks)
For the record i believe the last one

Now as i said before a lot of these topic got off track.  So what i'd like to ask is that if you answer you limit your answer to: the age of the earth, and the sources/reasons you have.  I'd like to ask people to not discuss ages with other people.  If you want to, there is a discuss subsection on this forum, please make your own thread there.


Answers from people in this thread:
-Very old (by a FEer)
-Billions of years old (by a FEer)
-4.5 billion years (by a FEer)
-500 years (by a FEer)

-The roundies are all liars.  They got it wrong.  (By a self proclaimed famous FEer)

-500 is a tad short (by a REer)

is you born before earth there is ?

all only estimate age earth umpteen

no there is that know age earth

So is this all i'm gonna get?  No real responses from 'famous' flat earthers?

So is this all i'm gonna get?  No real responses from 'famous' flat earthers?

Why do you need answers from "famous" flat earthers?  There are young earth FE, and there are old earth FE. Same as RE.

Why do you need answers from "famous" flat earthers?  There are young earth FE, and there are old earth FE. Same as RE.

Well inti will disagree with you on that.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 03, 2017, 10:06:56 AM

Why do you need answers from "famous" flat earthers?  There are young earth FE, and there are old earth FE. Same as RE.

Well inti will disagree with you on that.

So?  People disagree all the time. You are RE, do you agree with RE young earth creationists? No, you don't! That is life.

This is not a question that can or should be answered. It just serves to define the particular religion, scientific or otherwise, that the poster might hold.

It just serves to define the particular religion, scientific or otherwise, that the poster might hold.

And why exactly should that mean that the question can't/shouldn't be answered?

I suppose I spoke poorly; I mean, any answer will by necessity be nothing more than a story, and hold little to no real use aside from reflection. In another thread I argue about the existence of dinosaurs. Within, it is argued by my opponents that they don't have enough evidence to describe how these impossible dragons lived as it has decayed since then by geological necessity. To think the same entropy does not apply to our beginnings seems a bit foolhardy. I think at best, all we will ever know could be likened to Chinese Whispers.

Thing is if one claims that the earth is only 500 years old i've got loads of stuff to debunk it.  If you tell another story I might but until I hear it I can't.

Thing is if one claims that the earth is only 500 years old i've got loads of stuff to debunk it.  If you tell another story I might but until I hear it I can't.

You rounders usually depends on some stories. What you need to understand that we flat earth believers do not describe things that are not based on scientific evidence as scientific. There are many mistakes between fossils and transitional forms, and historical facts contrast each other. Also Religion and history are contradictory. Under these conditions you can't heard from a flat earth scientist / researcher talking about the age of the earth as a fact. Because we don't like to say lie instead of you and other rounds.

Quote from: gg1gamer on February 05, 2017, 12:02:35 PM

Thing is if one claims that the earth is only 500 years old i've got loads of stuff to debunk it.  If you tell another story I might but until I hear it I can't.

You rounders usually depends on some stories. What you need to understand that we flat earth believers do not describe things that are not based on scientific evidence as scientific. There are many mistakes between fossils and transitional forms, and historical facts contrast each other. Also Religion and history are contradictory. Under these conditions you can't heard from a flat earth scientist / researcher talking about the age of the earth as a fact. Because we don't like to say lie instead of you and other rounds.

Radiometric dating is pretty scientific.

The term 'Flat Earth Scientist' is an oxymoron.

Quote from: İntikam on February 05, 2017, 11:44:09 PM

Quote from: gg1gamer on February 05, 2017, 12:02:35 PM

Thing is if one claims that the earth is only 500 years old i've got loads of stuff to debunk it.  If you tell another story I might but until I hear it I can't.

You rounders usually depends on some stories. What you need to understand that we flat earth believers do not describe things that are not based on scientific evidence as scientific. There are many mistakes between fossils and transitional forms, and historical facts contrast each other. Also Religion and history are contradictory. Under these conditions you can't heard from a flat earth scientist / researcher talking about the age of the earth as a fact. Because we don't like to say lie instead of you and other rounds.

Radiometric dating is pretty scientific.

The term 'Flat Earth Scientist' is an oxymoron.

Radiometric dating is an oxymoron like you.

The term 'Flat Earth Scientist' is pretty scientific.

That all you got?

Your insults are even worse than your theories.

Feel free to discuss any issues you have with radiometric dating.

I'm just teaching you how you are acting as an idiotic oxymoron. But it does not change you. Because you really are an oxymoron.

I'm just teaching you how you are acting as an idiotic oxymoron. But it does not change you. Because you really are an oxymoron.

Keep digging. You're just demonstrating that you have no fucking clue what an oxymoron is. I appreciate English isn't your first language but if I wasn't sure what it meant I'd use my brain and find out. Personally, I can see what that would be a problem for you, but I suspect you can't.

Radiometric dating: what's wrong with it?

Quote from: İntikam on February 06, 2017, 03:29:25 AM

I'm just teaching you how you are acting as an idiotic oxymoron. But it does not change you. Because you really are an oxymoron.

Keep digging. You're just demonstrating that you have no fucking clue what an oxymoron is. I appreciate English isn't your first language but if I wasn't sure what it meant I'd use my brain and find out. Personally, I can see what that would be a problem for you, but I suspect you can't.

Radiometric dating: what's wrong with it?

Keep digging.

Radiometric dating: what's true with it?

Dr. Hovind (R1): The atmospheric C-14 is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

This argument was popularized by Henry Morris (1974, p.164), who used some calculations done in 1968 by Melvin Cook to get the 10,000-year figure. In 1968 another creationist, Robert L. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere!

This is what? This is "your" science. If we accept that, this proves you are not true. But I don't get it as a fact because I refute that method. In my opinion, there was possible some reasons to be cause making half of carbon. So this method is not reliable.

I can calculating the age of the earth as an estimate, but I don't claim it as "science". Gather the ages of the prophets from Adam to Jesus. Add it 2k years, that is what the result. But this is just a belief, not a science. But it should be overlap with scientific results. If they don't, science must be pre-accepted as wrong and test should be repeat again. Why I'm thinking like that? Because religion is meanwhile a history. You should not trust Jesus or Moses but as a result there is some books telling us same story as an history. Why whould us accept it as wrong? Come on we aren't necessary to accept them wrong. Carbon method is fucking wrong. If it doesn't, what about some result saying the age of the earth is less than 10.000 years? So, the age of the "humanity" is less than 10.000 years, but we still don't have a good reason for be sure the age of the earth.

Carbon 14 is only useful for dating material that has incorporated it organically, it is of no use dating older inorganic material. If you'd bothered to research properly you'd know that. Don't quote some religious bullshit site at me and try and prove something scientific.

Go away and research K:Ar ratios, see where that gets you instead.

I'm gonna be lazy and not quote what i'm reacting to, but i think you'll get it.

But first:  Q&A, i thought that stood for question and answer.  Oh well, it's f* anyway so let's just keep doing it:

The ¹⁴C is accurate for ORGANIC materials up to 60.000 years old.  After this the error of measurement become more than (and i might be wrong here but i believe it was) 1%.

Other radioactive isotopes that can be used:  ^235/238U and ⁴⁰K with a halflife of respectively: 7,038 × 10⁸ years and 1,2519 × 10⁹ years.  Dating can be done during the first (i believe) 10 half lives.  So we can accurately date up to 1,2519 × 10¹⁰ years. (for reference we estimate that the earth is 4,543 x 10⁹ years.)


Now someone claimed the following: "we flat earth believers do not describe things that are not based on scientific evidence as scientific".  And yet when i asked for some scientific studies to read a while back i didn't get a single response.  I guess everyone was sleeping then.