Do Christians REALLY believe the Earth is 5000-10000 years old?

Just the really ignorant ones.

The stars were created mature so their light would already be shining as far as it would go.

The layers of Rocks are not millions of years old. There is no radiological dating method that suggests such. Layers are dated by the fossils they contain, then the fossils are dated by the layers in which they are found. If you don't have any skepticism for that then you are not a true skeptic. Radio metric dating is only assumed to work after the ages have already been estimated by other means. It never works on items of a known age.

The layers are a product of hydro-logic sorting. Hmmm, doesn't the Bible say something about a flood?

Do you know that creatures will not fossilize unless they are buried rapidly and sealed air tight. If those layers are millions of years old, why are their fossils in them. Don't you think that a dead animal might ROT or get eaten while waiting around a few million years waiting for the next layer to form?

The Word Dinosaur was Invented in 1842. Before then, they used the word "dragon" just like our comodo dragon today. when Marco Polo went east, he documented the existence of dragons in the king's zoo and that there was a job of "royal dragon feeder." No doubt these were dinosaurs. Most of the dinosaurs were killed in the flood. The ones that survived were most likely the infant or adolescents which would be smaller. Another reason there aren't many around is for the same reason that you don't find Grizzly bears in Tallahassee, Florida. There are actually CURRENT reports of small Bracheasouruses living in some swamps in Africa.

Now about the "scientific methods" used to explain the age of the earth, etc... Both creationists and fairy-tale believers (aka: evolutionists) have all the same evidence. But they INTERPRET the evidence based on their presuppositions.

I look at the grand canyon and see lots of moved mud, hydro-logic sorting and layers, and I've seen how canyons form (Mt. St. Helens eruption, Spirit Lake, 1980 produced a 1/6 scale grand canyon in a few days). It's logical to me that the Grand Canyon formed during or shortly after the Biblical flood about 4400 years ago.

The evolutionist looks at the same canyon and must start with the preclusion that God doesn't exist and that the Bible is false. That's not science. Science would keep considering them until they could be ruled out.

As for other sciences - the science of origins is far different from the practical sciences of mechanics, etc... The modern things can be tested and demonstrated. No test or demonstration has ever been submitted for the origin of the universe.

I reconcile this quite simply. Everything that I see in the natural world looks exactly as I would expect it to look if the Bible were true.

I think you need to go back and look up the definition of "science" in several dictionaries, and then go back and re-evaluate your current state of indoctrination.

I've learned what I've learned by looking up and examining the evidence for myself. I didn't have a tax-supported public Nazi government indoctrination system spoon feeding it to me. Wise up!

I am a Christian. I believe it has been maybe 7,000 years since Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden. No one knows how long they were there nor how many generations were born before they were driven out.

Adam and Eve sinned before the forbidden fruit if they did not be "fruitful and multiply". This was one of the things God told them to do. Another thing that points to this idea is the fact of another land for Cain to go either take or get a wife. Either way, he went to a foreign country already in existence and if Eve is the "mother of all living" then they were the descendants of Adam and Eve in the garden.

Taking these facts into consideration, the earth itself would be much older than the exile from the garden.

It's like the statement: "You can't prove there is a God" and "I can't prove there isn't a God"

You can't prove definitively that the theory of evolution and the age of the earth is true, and I can't prove that it isn't.

We both have the same evidence, and we both approach it from opposite sides. There can be no link because no one in modern science was there to observe it, so all we are left with is theories.

eg. you say that light from a star takes millions of years to get to the earth for us to see.

I agree with that, but it can also be said: "how do you know the light wasn't there already" because you weren't there to see it - you only have part of your investigation as truth. 50% of truth doesn't make it true.

Scientists don't even know what light is. They know how to manipulate it and what it can do, but they essentially are not sure what exactly it is. 50% of an answer isn't the whole answer. You see?

Why do you accept the science as fact. Theory ok. Fact? There are a lot of things needed for carbon dating to be correct. Science can not prove the earth is older or younger by this method. You may be confusing theory as fact. For example c-14 dating uses rate of decay as a constant when there is no way yo know if this has actually been constant in years past. you also assume that the stars could not have been put where they are, but had to be shot to the distance by some "big bang" (another theory) not fact.

Where did youget that assertion from?

Man has been on Earth roughly 6000 years (5768 according to Jewish calendar).

However, the '6 days of creation' does not mean 24x6, especially days 1, 2,and 3 since our 24 hours comes from the relationship with the Earth, but the Sun was not created until day 4.

yes, tribal people from a few thousand years ago were much smarter than Scientists that patiently radio carbon date to determine age.

Dinosaur bones are a trick from Satan. So is the light we see from distant galaxies.

I had a high school physics teacher who spent two days providing a bizarre "scientific" explanation as to why he knows the earth is only 5000 years old and why carbon dating and other such things are not scientific.

The christians that do believe that have a lot of fun ways to reconcile. My favorite is that god planted those dinosaur bones in order to test mans faith.

Actually, if you read the scriptures closely, it never specifies that the 6 days of creation were 6 1,000 year days.

When you examine what the Bible says, it's more likely, the earth is around 42,000 years old.

As far as science proving it's millions of years old... they've proven that life can't start randomly and survive, so they can't even prove the theory of evolution has any basis in fact.

To answer all of your questions, I would have to write a short book, but dinosaurs did exist, and we did not evolve from them.

I can dispute a lot of things science says because they usually dispute themselves.

Some do. It astounds me. I feel like that in the year 2008 we should ALL know better. I want there to be a special ray gun that zaps people back 1500 years ago if they believe this. But then what would we do with Arkansas?