Changes

''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].''

''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].''

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. The subject is still debated today, particularly between [[young Earth Creationism|young-Earth scientists]], who believe that the Earth is only approximately 6,000-10,000 years old, and most scientific organisations who believe that Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years.[http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx]<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> The scientific evidence [[young earth creationism|points to a young age of the earth and the universe]], and the biblical creation organization [[Creation Ministries International]] published an article entitled ''[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]'', which further argues for the young age of the Earth.  

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. The subject is still debated today, particularly between [[young Earth Creationism|young-Earth scientists]], who believe that the Earth is only approximately 6,000-10,000 (8 × 10³  ± 25%) years old, and most scientific organisations who believe that Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 10⁹ ± 1%).[http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx]<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> The scientific evidence [[young earth creationism|points to a young age of the earth and the universe]], and the biblical creation organization [[Creation Ministries International]] published an article entitled ''[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]'', which further argues for the young age of the Earth.  

Old Earth advocates rely on one flawed assumption to the exclusion of other evidence, similar to how an investigator may mistakenly rely on one eyewitness's opinion to the exclusion of all else.  In fact, eyewitness testimony is proven to be less reliable to 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. In fact, a large number of physical processes, such as neutron capture and fluctuations in solar radiation, can affect the rate of radioactive decay of elements in the Earth's crust and render radioactive dating measurements unreliable with errors up to 5%, depending upon the specific methods used.<ref>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899536205000138#bib6</ref>  Even so, such an error will not cause a calculation of the age of the Earth based on radiometric dating to be off by up to five [[order of magnitude|orders of magnitude]].

Old Earth advocates rely on one flawed assumption to the exclusion of other evidence, similar to how an investigator may mistakenly rely on one eyewitness's opinion to the exclusion of all else.  In fact, eyewitness testimony is proven to be less reliable to 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. In fact, a large number of physical processes, such as neutron capture and fluctuations in solar radiation, can affect the rate of radioactive decay of elements in the Earth's crust and render radioactive dating measurements unreliable with errors up to 5%, depending upon the specific methods used.<ref>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899536205000138#bib6</ref>  Even so, such an error will not cause a calculation of the age of the Earth based on radiometric dating to be off by up to five [[order of magnitude|orders of magnitude]].