What if the world is actually only 6000 years old?

What if the world is actually only 6000 years old?
I mean, sure, it isn't, but what if it is?

The oldest trees we can find are conveniently about 7000 years old. Considering that tree rings appear at a varying rate, it's dangerously close to the biblical 6000 year limit.

Sure, we have radioactive dating. What if it's based on assumptions that are simply wrong? And of course, we have allegedly starlight that has travelled for millions of years. What if it hasn't? Maybe tomorrow someone will develop new science that proves all that old light suffered from some kind of time dilation and appeared older than it is. Before Einstein, we used to believe all kinds of stupid shit to fill the gaps in science.

I mean, shit, I don't want to say this, but there's a 0,1% chance scientists are actually biased towards atheism which makes them force their results to match an atheistic world view. This would be unscientific but we're only human. We all want to favor our beliefs.

What the hell are you blabbering about? The universe has existed, like, couple of minutes.

Then I want to be Feanor.

>If we ignore all scientific evidence pointing towards the Earth being a lot older than 6000 years, and try to set an upper bound on its age based solely on the age of the oldest trees, which have comparatively short lifespans, it kinda seems like the Earth is only 6000 years old.
No shit.
>there's a 0,1% chance scientists are actually biased towards atheism which makes them force their results to match an atheistic world view
Back when scientists first started discovering signs of the Earth being a lot older than they though, virtually all of them were Christian/religious, so I'm pretty sure they weren't biased towards atheism.

>>If we ignore all scientific evidence pointing towards the Earth being a lot older than 6000 years, and try to set an upper bound on its age based solely on the age of the oldest trees, which have comparatively short lifespans, it kinda seems like the Earth is only 6000 years old.
>No shit.
Except you'd have to explain how trees are obviously related to all other plants, but somehow spung into unrelated existence just after the world was "created".

I assumed OP threw out evolution, since evolution alone points to the Earth being much older. One explanation I've heard from creationists for the apparent similarity of different lifeforms is "common design, common designer", i.e. God made things look similar on purpose.

>6000 years that are never mentioned
Why are atheists so intellectually bankrupt, why are they so unnaturally stupid, why are they so poorly educated. Is this how an atheist is born, no surprise most modern scientists are complete nu-males who worship science and reason and logic and truth and free speech and forcing them as an absolutely objective tools while not only are they kneeling for politics, they themselves get emotionally involved and would rather falsify information than accept the truth. They would tell you how important science is but they themselves would not know basic things about it other doing their specific work which equals not more than of an office worker. These same people usually have really bad reading comprehension which makes you wonder how these people became scientists in the first place. The only reason it could be is out of sheer autism and so the reason they are so vocal. These same people not only think that they are above art, religion and philosophy but they also think that they made them obsolete. Sadly when actually challenged with even the most basic works of one of the mentioned branches they are completely stumped. If they are even able to stick with it for a long time, they, at very best take out of them the most basic and surface points because their analysis is absolutely superficial just like their views. Most of them are absolutely normal, non-thinking beings who don't really strive for actual truth but just their own research based subject. It is to no surprise that a normal properly educated philosopher can destroy a normal properly educated mathematician even in their own field given enough time. It is sad that atheists biggest accomplishment is Rick and Morty a show that even the biggest shit eaters can't stand. The attack of Christianity comes from their need to release their bottled anger as they are not beings who can transcend their mundane existence. Their misinterpretation is that of a complete git

"Imean, sure, it isn't, but what if..."

So, playing what if, we'd havve to account for why it was already so old when it was created, I guess.

God created 6000 years ago a 4 billions years old earth, what so hard to understand ?

If we might have hugely misused radioactive dating and misinterpreted cosmic microwave background radiation (which has a definitely positive probability), then shouldn't you also doubt our methods in estimating the ages of trees?

You either accept/deny whatever you wish (which is what you're doing), or you could try to understand those methods based on first principals. If after trying to understand those methods, you don't agree them, then you might try to develop your own theory on estimating whatever you're trying to understand, and prove you're correct.

>they are above art
Why, I love anime.

too much
>implying
in one post

The problem with God in any scientific reasoning is that once you introduce an omnipotent element into the system it becomes useless because everything can be instantly explained away. That's why even religious scientists try to avoid putting God anywhere but where they deem absolutely necessary. That might be "atheism bias" for you but it's simply good practice that consistently outputs good science.

I have no evidence to support that the universe exists at all.

There are a lot of challenges to evolution. In order for it to be the case that it was in fact true that evolution did happen in the past, then it would be duly nesessary for one or two of several key pointers to be also true as well. However, this can be like trying to explain colors to a blind-man- you're just wasting your time sometimes. Anyway, back to the facts. The point of the matter which is under discussion is the fact that, in order for frogs to have evolved from fish, then it would be required that 1) the fish became able to breathe air 2) the fish became able to walk on land. In order for a fish to evlove into a FROG isn't it necessary that absolutely both 1 and 2 have to occur simultaneously? It is so improbable that both of those "beneficial" mutations would occur at one time that one might be willing to admit confidently that they are less than one in a million. Therefore, you also have to consider the fact that EVEN if both the 1 in a 10^6% chance of both 1 and 2 happening, how would the frogs even know what to do with the legs and the air? If you think about them, these aren't too beneficial in the first place anyways.

Theologian here.

Let us assume the Earth is 6,000 years old. The reason for being that age can only be attributed to divine intervention.

I will postulate even further evolution doesn’t exist but extreme adaptation based upon mutation. Potentially as short as 2-3 generations. Animals and man included. That still doesn’t explain why even using a brand new scientific method that measures up to the 6k Mark explains the formation of life without the divine rule.

>The oldest trees we can find are conveniently about 7000 years old.

For that matter, why not a day ago? An omnipotent being that creates everything could conceivably create all we think we have known as pre-loaded memories. There is no reason to assume a creation 10,000 years old is any different from hours, minutes, or even nanoseconds.

Gets pretty silly, eh?

Whaddiff you are actually as retarded as you seem?
There's a 99% probability (not "chance", you retard)
you are actually biased towards autism which makes you force
your conclusions to match an autistic world view.

nibba it was discerned to be literally impossible hundreds of years ago. figures since have ranged from 1-100 million (mainly from speculation mixed with faux-calculation), finally resulting in the proved figure of 4.54 (give or take 0.05) billion years. atheism has nothing to do with it because all involved were religious (outside of recent figure refinements, which are based on the age of geological material). the 6000 years thing is a modern american thing. no one except maybe ancient jews ever believed in anything of the sort.

tldr

>What if the world is actually only 6000 years old?
>I mean, sure, it isn't, but what if it is?
maybe my dude but what them legs do