The Age of the Earth

Since evolution takes effect over geological time, it's necessary first to establish that such time has been available for evolutionary forces to act. So what is the age of our planet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

"

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 10⁹ years ± 1%).^[1][2][3][4] This age may represent the age of the Earth's accretion, of core formation, or of the material from which the Earth formed.^[2] This dating is based on evidence from radiometric age-dating of meteorite^[5] material and is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Following the development of radiometric age-dating in the early 20th century, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.^[6] The oldest such minerals analyzed to date—small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia—are at least 4.404 billion years old.^[7][8][9] Calcium–aluminium-rich inclusions—the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the Solar System—are 4.567 billion years old,^[10][11] giving a lower limit for the age of the solar system.

"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/

"Aristotle thought the earth had existed eternally. Roman poet Lucretius, intellectual heir to the Greek atomists, believed its formation must have been relatively recent, given that there were no records going back beyond the Trojan War. The Talmudic rabbis, Martin Luther and others used the biblical account to extrapolate back from known history and came up with rather similar estimates for when the earth came into being. The most famous came in 1654, when Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland offered the date of 4004 B.C."

"Within decades observation began overtaking such thinking. In the 1660s Nicolas Steno formulated our modern concepts of deposition of horizontal strata. He inferred that where the layers are not horizontal, they must have been tilted since their deposition and noted that different strata contain different kinds of fossil. Robert Hooke, not long after, suggested that the fossil record would form the basis for a chronology that would “far antedate ... even the very pyramids.” The 18th century saw the spread of canal building, which led to the discovery of strata correlated over great distances, and James Hutton’s recognition that unconformities between successive layers implied that deposition had been interrupted by enormously long periods of tilt and erosion. By 1788 Hutton had formulated a theory of cyclic deposition and uplift, with the earth indefinitely old, showing “no vestige of a beginning—no prospect of an end.” Hutton considered the present to be the key to the past, with geologic processes driven by the same forces as those we can see at work today. This position came to be known as uniformitarianism, but within it we must distinguish between uniformity of natural law (which nearly all of us would accept) and the increasingly questionable assumptions of uniformity of process, uniformity of rate and uniformity of outcome."

etc..

".... The second act of the drama sees a prolonged attempt by a new generation of geologists to estimate the age of the earth from observational evidence, to come up with an answer that would satisfy the demands of newly dominant evolutionary thinking, and to reconcile this answer with the constraints imposed by thermodynamics. The third act sees the entry of a newly discovered set of physical laws—those governing radioactivity. Radioactivity offered not only a resolution to the puzzle of the earth’s energy supply but also a chronology independent of questionable geologic assumptions and a depth of time more than adequate for the processes of evolution."

Without the acceptance of the age of the Earth that evidence & careful measurement gives us, no useful discussion of evolution can take place as far as I can see.

I have a few questions.. Like always.... How do they know radiometric dating works..... And fossils can form quickly and how can they even tell the difference. that is because radiometric dating sucks.... The best dating is the Bible. Just follow along the lines of generations, and you will get to a basic number that the age of the earth is around.....Also... The radiometric dating uses decay rates... But since fossils can form in a matter of months... Cant the be  mistaken???? How do they know that the process of decay does not change along the way.... you see, radiometric data is the only thing that evolutionists can try and help their own "theology" with. Pls explain then, if the scrolls of the Bible were passsed down from many generations, and we have BC and AD, why??? Because we can not deny that God lives.... 

And that his son was on this earth

See this article.

Yes, really see it, read it, try to understand it.

Ignoring it does not constitute an argument for your views.

ummm, pls do not refer to dawin, cause before his death he admitted evolution was wrong and that it is not true... And those words came from a professional scientist who was a great helper in evolution....

And btw a monkey and a human can have some relations but that does not prove we came from them... Just like an eggplant has seeds and has pale fruit but it is not related to an apple..

Also read this article..

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/how-fast-fossils-rock-layers/ 

And why do some scientific instruments show a young earth??

And how do you know what age the rocks are???? If you date fossils by the rocks??

I am not blaming scientists, but supporters and people helping out the evolution belief

If we can set dogma aside for a moment & address the matters of fact instead?

The rates at which different isotopes decay is well known & by measuring the proportion of the isotopic material that hasn't yet decayed, a good idea of the time that's elapsed since the material was formed can be arrived at. This is why such isotopes are sometimes described as nature's clocks.

It's a reliable method of dating different samples & if it wasn't, professional scientists wouldn't waste their time using it. They'd find a different technique instead.

But what do you think the speed at which fossils form has to do with evolutionary theory? More particularly, it's the strata (layers) in which they're found that helps to date their age, not the rate at which they became mineralised. But where did you read that "...fossils can form in a matter of months" - I've never heard of that. More usually the organic matter of the animals body is replaced by minerals from the surrounding soil or rock.

He did no such thing. Why do you believe this?

No educated & informed person would claim that our species descended from any monkey - only creationists wrongly believe this is what evolutionary theory predicts.

Man & the other great apes are believed to have evolved from a common ape-like ancestor. So please get your facts straight!

Have you read the articles I linked to above? I'm guessing not.

Simple answer - they don't. If you believe every misquote you read on creationist websites, you'll remain badly informed.

There're some extremely smart & well educated priests in the Catholic Church, yet that organisation abandoned it's objections to scientific conclusions regarding the age of the Earth & evolution long ago.

In 1950 the church formerly accepted the broad sweep of modern evolutionary theory. Even among people of faith YEC's are a diminishing group.

Often times Evolution Deniers use outdated, long-refuted claims.

This one is one of the easiest to refute. 

In fact, I can refute it, using nothing more than a Creationist website.

Welcome to Creation.com

https://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

“Darwin recanted on his deathbed”. Many people use this story, originally from a Lady Hope. However, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him, even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. Also, even if true, so what? If a prominent creationist recanted Creation, would that disprove it? There is no value to this argument whatever.

Well, when that monkey and that human are later found to have 95% of matching DNA, then we need to step back, and wonder how that just happened to match what Evolution would expect?

Well of course Ham is going to tell us that.

What did you expect him to say? The truth?

He does have a water slide he is trying to pay for, after all.

Oldest Burial Yields DNA Evidence of First Americans
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140212-anzik-skeleton-dna-montana-clovis-culture-first-americans/
DNA harvested from the remains of an infant buried 13,000 years ago confirms that the earliest widespread culture in North America was descended from humans who crossed over to the New World from Asia, scientists say.
The research, detailed in this week's issue of the journal Nature, also suggests that many contemporary Native Americans are direct descendants of the so-called Clovis people, whose distinctive stone tools have been found scattered across North America and Mexico.
The origins and genetic legacy of the people who made Clovis tools have been topics of debate among scientists. While most archaeologists think that the Clovis people were descended from Asians, an alternative theory suggests that the Clovis ancestors emigrated from southwestern Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum more than 15,000 years ago.
The new findings strongly refute that idea, known as the Solutrean hypothesis, said study co-author Michael Waters, director of the Center for the Study of the First Americans at Texas A&M University. "This shows very clearly that the ancestry of the very first Americans can be traced back to Asia," Waters said.
David Anderson, an anthropologist at the University of Tennessee Knoxville, agreed. "There's been a standard model for a long time that modern Native Americans are descended from populations coming from East Asia a few thousand years before Clovis, and that's what this finding reinforces," said Anderson, who was not involved in the study.
Anthropologist Dennis Jenkins of the University of Oregon said the new study was a "really important and really well done piece of research" that opens the door for new kinds of genetic comparisons among ancient Native American remains.
"The importance of this cannot be overemphasized," said Jenkins, who also did not participate in the research.