''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].''
The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. Yet with circular reasoning and implausible assumptions, [[liberals]] insist that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 10<sup>9</sup> ± 1%).<ref name="101Evidences"/><ref name="RefutingEvo"/><ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml polling]</ref>
Old Earth advocates rely on one flawed assumption to the exclusion of other evidence, similar to how an investigator may mistakenly rely on one faulty eyewitness's opinion to the exclusion of all else. In fact, eyewitness testimony is proven to be less reliable than other indicators, just as the assumption by Old Earth proponents that the [[Radiometric dating|rate of radioactive decay]] has always been constant is flawed. Far from being constant, the rate of radioactive decay would inevitably almost certainly slow down as the universe cools. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/nuclear-decay-evidence-for-young-world</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/radioactive-decay-rates-not-stable</ref><ref>https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/the-fallacies-of-radioactive-dating-of-rocks</ref> At the very least, it is not consistent and easily predictable.<ref>http://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Nuclear_Chemistry/Radioactivity/Radioactive_Decay_Rates</ref>
Moreover, a large number of physical processes, such as neutron capture and fluctuations in solar radiation, affect the rate of radioactive decay of elements in the Earth's crust and render radioactive dating measurements unreliable, depending upon the specific methods used.<ref>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899536205000138#bib6</ref>
<div style="padding-left:40px;">— Georg Christoph Lichtenberg </div>
|}
Consequently, his research of the Earth’s age turned into calculation of ''"the correct sample ratios"'' from ''"observed ratios"'' so that the Table in his paper could finally show the “correct” preconceived age, established in this field of research.<ref name= "GALE1972">{{cite journal |title=Uranium-Lead Chronology of Chrondritic Meteorites |author= Gale, N.H., Arden, J.W. and Hutchison, R. ||journal=Nature |issue=240 |pages=56-57 56–57 |date=20 November 1972 |doi=10.1038/physci240056a0
|url=http://www.nature.com/nature-physci/journal/v240/n99/pdf/physci240056a0.pdf
|quote= Considerable variations in uranium and lead concentrations are observed in different gram sized fragments of the same meteorite5·7,8, and fission track studies10 show that on the microscopic scale changes in uranium concentration by factors of 105 are observed over distances of ˜10˜2 cm. Because of experimental difficulties the uranium and lead concentrations and the lead isotopic abundances have not been measured hitherto in the same sample of a given meteorite, so that it is possible, but not proven, that the apparent lack of concordance between daughter and parent isotopes may be a direct consequence of these heterogeneities; this point of view has been well argued by Fisher11. Most of the early work on the determination of lead in meteorites was in any case badly hampered by analytical contamination by terrestrial lead.}}</ref><ref name="GALE1979">{{cite journal |title=U-Pb studies of the appley bridge meteorite |author=Gale, N.H., Arden, J.W. and Hutchison, R. |publisher=Naturwissenschaften |year=1979 |volume=66 |issue=8 |pages=419-420 419–420 |doi=10.1007/BF00368077 |url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/r741164v5162r447}}</ref> This methodological flaw is known as [[data torturing]].
Using [[circular logic]] — assuming that decay rates remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin — Old Earth proponents insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on an assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>