Well, this is awkward

it depends on the sect of christianity. That's just one sect that believes it. Many believe that God created it trillions of years ago, and some don't even want to know! The Bible never says when the universe was created, so...

Not really awkward at all. One of those dates is false, and it's more likely to be the top one.

Well I do believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago!!! When I was young my bible camp counselor said that it said in the bible that the earth is 6000 years ago!!!

What yo believe to be true is not necessarily true. If you read the bible, nowhere does it say that the world was created 6000 years ago. That age was first arrived a by Archbishop Ussher of Armagh by adding up the ages of people named in the bible. The evidence provided by radio-dating using a multiplicity of different methods all point to the Earth as having been formed a nearly a million times further back in time. The youn Earth creationist movement arose from the alleged visions of a brain damaged woman, Ellen White. Look it up.

Misleading comment. The rule about "what you believe to be true is not necessarily true" applies to your position at least as much as meirule's, so there's no point invoking it as if it helps your side.

Evidence proved by radio-dating? No. Radio-dating doesn't give age directly. Scientists can measure the amount of a parent element and daughter element in a specimen, and then based on what we know about radio-decay rates, together with assumptions about what the initial conditions were, estimate the age. The problem is that there isn't an outside way of checking if the assumptions about initial conditions are correct, so radio-dating is basically circular reasoning, and cannot overturn biblical assertions.

Also to say "nowhere does it say that the world was created 6000 years ago" is misleading as well. It's technically true that it doesn't, but on the other hand nowhere does it say that the world was created 4.5 billion years ago, either. The age wasn't invented by Archbishop Ussher out of thin air. It was based on a genealogies in the Bible and his attempt to reconcile those genealogies with what was known then about world history. While it's true to say that the date of 6,000 years ago isn't specified, the fact that there is a reliable genealogy in the book of Luke that goes from Jesus Christ all the way back to Adam gives us good reason to conclude that it probably was approximately 6,000 years ago that the universe was created, and certainly not much more than 10,000 years.

Your assertion about the "young Earth creationist" movement arising from the vision of Ellen White isn't correct either (the very fact that you mentioned Ussher shows that you should have know better than that). What you call "young Earth creationism" was the consensus of Jewish and Christian scholars and theologians from the time that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible in approximately 1500 BC until about the middle of the 1800's. It was the prevailing view long before Ellen White.

So, with all due respect, you're not really in a position to be telling this person to "look it up." It seems like you who has been misinformed in this matter.

// The rule about "what you believe to be true is not necessarily true" applies to your position at least as much as meirule's, so there's no point invoking it as if it helps your side.

Except that my dates have evidence to support them. All you have got is an ancient mythology.

// The problem is that there isn't an outside way of checking if the assumptions about initial conditions are correct

False. It is not just 1 radiometric dating method that shows the 6000 year age to be wrong. It is multiple dating methods such as luminescence dating, .

// he age wasn't invented by Archbishop Ussher out of thin air. It was based on a genealogies in the Bible and his attempt to reconcile those genealogies with what was known then about world history

Indeed, except that there isn't a reliable genealogy in the bible. There is no independent evidence of that genealogy. The alleged author of those genealogies is Moses and yet, there is no independent evidence that he existed let alone penned those genealogies.

// Your assertion about the "young Earth creationist" movement arising from the vision of Ellen White isn't correct either (the very fact that you mentioned Ussher shows that you should have know better than that).

That was my mistake. I meant to say "modern YEC" since Ussher did indeed calculate an age based upon what little was known in the 1600s when he lived.

// Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible in approximately 1500 BC

1. No evidence that Moses ever existed.
2. No evidence that, even if he did exist, that he wrote the the first 5 books of the bible.
3. If he did exist and did write those books, he did so 2500 years after the alleged creation of the universe.
4. No evidence of any god writing or inspiring him to write it.

All you have got to back up the 6000 year age is a book of doubtful provenance allegedly written by a man whose existence has never been confirmed allegedly inspired by a god whose existence has never been empirically verified.

The Bhagavad Gita and the Rainbow Serpent myths are as valid as the bible.

Seems to me that it is you who is using circular arguments and not in a position to comment on someone who has actually studied the bible and other mythologies.

Most of your replies fall under the category of the logical fallacy of "mere assertion."

Eg - you have "evidence" to back your dates up (where?), all I have is "ancient mythology" (just calling it "mythology" doesn't make it that), "there isn't a reliable genealogy in the Bible" (again, just saying it isn't reliable doesn't make that true), "the Bhagavad Gita and Rainbow Serpent myths are as valid as the Bible" (oh really? thanks for sharing your opinion), "seems to me you are using circular arguments" (you haven't identified which argument I made that was circular), and "not in a position to comment on someone who has actually studied the Bible" (why not? are you implying you've studied it more than I have? what is it about my comment that makes you think I'm not in a position to comment, please?)

Since those are just mere assertions and you haven't shared a reason to believe them, I don't need to answer them further.

Correcting your statement by saying you meant to say "modern YEC" doesn't fix the problem. Since you know about Ussher (not to mention all the other scholars and theologians that would come down on the side a recent age for the earth throughout history) it's not reasonable to just assume that those in the modern YEC movement don't have access to that information as well. They may have got it from him, or other scholars, instead of Ellen White. If you don't know the place they got it from, then that in itself is another form of "mere assertion." You don't know.

As for your reply to my highlighting the problem about unverifiable assumptions about initial starting conditions in dating mechanisms, you didn't respond to that issue at all. You merely said "False" (another mere assertion on your part), and then proceeded to answer me as if I had said only 1 radiometric dating method establishes an older age than what the Bible confirms. That's not what I said. I was talking about the assumptions regarding initial conditions. If that information is unknown in all radio-metric dating methods (which it is, because we weren't there to measure it, and there's no way to measure a sample from the past), then that goes across all radio-metric dating methods, and the number of how many there are doesn't matter.

Merely stating your position is not an argument for that position. If you have a reasons to believe the assertions you're making, or reasons why I should believe them too, please let me know what those reasons are.

WELL! I can see these arguments have been going on for a long time. You sound logical to me, I'm doing more thinking about these matters, never having been very satisfied with any interpretation. BTW you can check for archaeological proof of King David (finally!) and evidence in the Red Sea about chariots. In case you didn't know.

The Red Sea thing-- I thought there was new evidence. Guess not.