How Old is the Earth ?

"Hey, I've got an idea, Zimzam: Why don't you provide POSITIVE evidence of your assertion that the world is only ~6000 years old? Since you're the one trying to throw out several hundred years of scientific research in geology, cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, biology, paleontology, etc, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you.
I await your revelations with baited breath. "
--Is there really anything that is an indicator that the earth is such an age without the argument of radiometric dating methods?------------------

"One of the more frustrating aspects of your question is that you are too ignorant of the history of science to now already know this."
--I was aware of different dating methods, I was looking for ones that will give you 4.5 billion as your 'age of the earth'. I am not aware of any that will give you this number, but I am aware of the different geological relative dating methods by which you have addressed.------------------

"No, and this still demonstrates the ignorance. Do you have something specific to say about radiometric dating?"
--It does not demonstrate ignorance, unless ofcourse you can provide me with a vast list of obvious dating techniques that give the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years. This is what I asked for in regardence to the fact that I have only heard of radiometric dating methods all on its lonesome for the age of the earth.------------------

"Yes, because it indicates your very limited knowledge of the issues again. Despite that limited information you have chosen to make claims based on it."
--Then can you give me an example that is non-radiometric associated that will give you such an age? I have not made claims on it yet, obviously, because there is no basis to argue on as of yet."Now, I am going to ask you again, do you have some substantive information on radiometric dating?"
--Not currently, I am not arguing with radioisotopic methods right now.------------------

"TC, you are merely diverting attention from the question to which we are awaiting an answer with bated breath. What is the evidence to support the assertion that the earth, at least, is no more than 10,000 years old?"
--Evidence, would be the ability for such an age to cope with the assertion that it takes your time-scale to create somthing by which you will date. So what are these examples?------------------

"That's exactly what you were doing.So, to repeat the original question, what positive evidence do you have of a 6,000 year old earth?"
--lbhandli accused me as being ignorant from me haveing 'limited knowledge' on the issue. The question that I asked that he accounted ignorance on my part, is, are there any other dating techniques not associated with radiometric dating that gives you 4.5 billion years as your date for the age of the earth.------------------

"The POINT was that you would know this answer if you had any knowledge of the field."
--So there arent any? I would not think there would be any, I was making sure that I wouldn't make any comments in such a topic that would regard this question. It isn't ignorant, its eager to know."Now, if you are in a thread entitled the age of the Earth and you want to discuss it and you are wondering how we come to the age of the Earth, what are you doing then?"
--My question was are there any sort of dating techniques that will also give you an age of the earth's 'existance', not that it is more than 6000 years old. Different questions.-------------------

"Well not sure that any go all the way back to 4.5 billion years,
but there ARE other methods that date the Earth to MUCH more
than 10,000 years."
--This wasn't my question, my question was are there any 'not associated with radioisotopic dating methods'. You gave me what I already knew. Basically what I am asking is are there any so I know what to be researching. I also find the Argument of Radioisotopical methods quite unballanced as I must have expertise and you only have to know the argument in-turn. Thus I have alot of research on my part to dismantle it at all. I also found that when you dismantle Radioisotopical methods then you have basically gone to the crux of the old earth.-------------------

"Well not sure that any go all the way back to 4.5 billion years,
but there ARE other methods that date the Earth to MUCH more
than 10,000 years."
--Anything but Radiometric dating? And might I add, that isn't accounting on Radioisotopical dating as acclaimed of relevance.-------------------

"I for one think this would be interesting reading if you want to post this info Quetzal......."
--I could second that emotion, its always interesting within these theories, I havent read theoretical abiogenesis for a bit of time, since then I've read hundreds of pages in Biology, so it would be much easier understandable. ------------------

"Um TC you second motions not emotions....(though given the electronic nature of this debate a good case could be made for e-motion)"
--Oops, my mistake (e-motion )------------------

"Check some of the links in my earlier posts ... they cite
evidences for the age of the Earth that have nothing to
do with radiometric dating.Few of them can go all the way back to 4.5billion years, but
most of them indicate much greater than 10,000 years, and
some in the order of 100's of millions of years."
--Wheres this at Peter? Thanx.------------------

"Apologies for starting up a duplicate topic. I've only just joined the forum in the last couple of days, and hadn't found my way around when I posted it. I'll be more careful when posting topics in the future..."
--No problem Greg, and welcome to the forum, I am sure your presents here will be most valuable for a source of discussion and information. Cheers to you. I tend to stick around in the Great debate section for the high majority of my posts, I rarely enter other forums (coffee house, Topical discussion, etc). Usually because moderation is at a minimum, and discussion tends to go in too many directions with a less formal style.------------------

"Message 83 ... posted as Pete ... but it was me"
--It would be much easier to comment if perhaps you would give more of a 'list' type of consideration, with a breif sentance such as:Dendrochronology - because the oldest trees found are over 10,000 years old
Evaporites - because it takes millions of years for them to form
Magnetic reversals - because it takes hundreds of thousands of years for each new one to take action and 10,000+ years for polarity to reverse.--Something along these lines would be much appreciated.------------------

"Lest someone misinterpret your wish as 'truth'....
The oldest trees are not 10,000 years old. I think the oldest is ~4500 years old, the dendrochronologic record uses overlaps between the living trees and fossil trees to extend the record back"
--Yes it was a quick example of the format of what I would hope it to be for a more 'to the point' discussion. I appreciate your clarity, though I wouldn't have thought that anyone would have taken my assertions at such a magnitude of seriousness. I am also quite glad that there is such a technique for such extensions."Evaporites:It doesn't take millions of years for them to form in all cases."
--Yes, it is a matter of rate of evaporation or other environmental conditions."Reversals:What do you mean 'to take action'? Reversals of the field are random events, some polarity intervals are of short duration and others last a long time. The interval of time it takes for a reversal is somewhere between 1-10 ka."
--Yes, once again, it was given in the context of an example, thanks for the clarity."Now, if you get to examining the reversal record in its full context (ocean floor, ocean sediment and continental record) you will begin to realize the folly of your previous assertions regarding their temporal relationships."
--I would highly doubt this, as if it is, than the old earth prospect is in itself most likely flawed, as mine is basically a relative 'compression' of your time scale.------------------