Changes

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is 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 × 10⁹ ± 1%).<ref name="101Evidences"/><ref name="RefutingEvo"/><ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml polling]</ref>

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is 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 × 10⁹ ± 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 would 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>  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>

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 would 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>

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>