Name 1 process...

[corvus_corax]

You're using the fact of Evolution to prove the theory of Evolution? Are you using circular reasoning? How do you know the species weren't created?

Actually (and I freely admit that Im nitpicking a bit), he's using evolution to back up the argument that the earth is billions of years old (as per your OP, which didnt mention evolution)

 

[Novaknight1]

Can anyone name one process that says the Earth is 6000 years old besides "The Bible/God says so"?

Certainly.

www.acts2.com/thebibletruth/Proof_A_Young_Earth.htm

 

[Novaknight1]

Actually (and I freely admit that Im nitpicking a bit), he's using evolution to back up the argument that the earth is billions of years old (as per your OP, which didnt mention evolution)

So he says the Earth's billions of years old because of ONE highly controversial process. I think one might want a little bit more convincing evidence.

 

[Novaknight1]

Im guessing......
A lot!
Im pretty sure my wages wouldnt even be a down payment

Maybe Bill Gates couldn't make a down payment.

 

[corvus_corax]

Maybe Bill Gates couldn't make a down payment.

Believe it or not, I actually found it
10 million US dollars (1999 rate)
Apparently, there are 10 in the world

 

[Novaknight1]

Believe it or not, I actually found it
10 million US dollars (1999 rate)
Apparently, there are 10 in the world

$10 million? That's a bit out of my price range. Too bad it's not in blessings.

 

[Event Horizon]

Certainly.

www.acts2.com/thebibletruth/Proof_A_Young_Earth.htm

It seeing multiple PRATTs in here, so i'll just post the links to the rebuttals rather than give a two page report on each claim. After this, I hope you will learn to be a bit more skeptical about the creationists links.
1) The Earth's Magnetic Field
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html
2) The Mississippi River Delta
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD211.html
3) Petroleum and Natural Gas
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD231.html
4)The Rotation of the Earth
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html

 

[Event Horizon]

So he says the Earth's billions of years old because of ONE highly controversial process. I think one might want a little bit more convincing evidence.

It's really not that controversial, except when it comes to creationists. With carbon dating and such we can tell it's at least a certain age. This dating process goes a bit farther than them and tells the full age with surprising accuracy. There could be more dating proccesses that go back that far to tell the age of the earth but geology isn't my thing.

 

[Event Horizon]

I heard, from Kent Hovind's seminar

I feel sorry for you all ready.

and from a book called The Collapse of Evolution, that Evos could use Carbon dating to date dinosaurs in ice,

1) I wouldn't trust Hovind on that subject or any subject for that matter if I were you.
2) It can only date so far. What did they say the ages were?

but that would indicate a young creature.

According to Scientific Creation, it dated a live mollusk's shell to be 27,000 years old.

That's a bit of creationist dishonesty actually. There are restrictions for getting accurite measurements with the dating process and with this, they misuse the method on purpose to make it look like the method was flawed. To learn how they misused the process, I recommend you read up on the reservoir effect.

 

[kahri]

.

 

[caravelair]

According to Scientific Creation, it dated a live mollusk's shell to be 27,000 years old.

carbon dating can only be used to date organisms that get their carbon from atmospheric sources (usually from eating land plants that get their carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere). that is why you can't use c14 dating to date sea dwelling creatures like that mollusk you speak of. if that creationist didn't apply an incorrect dating technique, he wouldn't have got an incorrect date. it's the creationist's fault, not the technique's.

 

[Event Horizon]

Carbon 12, with a half life of some 5200 years, isn't useful for dating the Earth. Just thought I'd point that out.

I was just making the point some dating measurements can show the earth to be at least a certain age, but that's all.

 

[caravelair]

as for other types of dating techniques...

For instance, we could count the Green River formation in Wyoming. It contains more than 4,000,000 layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain freshwater lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.

The basic reason for varves is that rivers run faster in the spring. A flooding river is able to carry coarse material. During the rest of the year, the river is slower, and it can only carry less-coarse material. The result is that lake bottom deposits tend to alternate, coarse/fine/coarse/fine.

Studies of present-day lakes don't always show two layers per year. There might be a cycle of 2, 3 or 4 distinct sediments, and then the same cycle repeats. But in the Green River varves, the cycle has only two layers - a fine light sediment, and an even finer dark sediment.

And of course the occasional storm might add an extra layer. However, this hardly turns millions of layers into a 6,000 year project.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/varves.html

other techniques:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/astro_cycles.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/icecap.html

 

[corvus_corax]

Carbon 12, with a half life of some 5200 years, isn't useful for dating the Earth. Just thought I'd point that out.

Measuring Carbon 12?
Carbon 14 has a measurable effect for up to approximately 50,000 years, Uranium-thorium dating has an upper age limit of somewhat over 500,000 years, and lets not forget that the potassium isotope K40 decays to argon40 with a half-life of 1,300,000,000 years

 

[kahri]

Measuring Carbon 12?
Carbon 14 has a measurable effect for up to approximately 50,000 years, Uranium-thorium dating has an upper age limit of somewhat over 500,000 years, and lets not forget that the potassium isotope K40 decays to argon40 with a half-life of 1,300,000,000 years

What I meant was that Carbon dating is not proper in determining older dates. I realized that I did not include C14, which is why I edited my post right after (although not fast enough, it would seem).

 

[corvus_corax]

What I meant was that Carbon dating is not proper in determining older dates. I realized that I did not include C14, which is why I edited my post right after (although not fast enough, it would seem).

Ah righto!
Understood then
Ive had that issue to (not editing for clarification fast enough)

 

[refitor]

It's really not that controversial, except when it comes to creationists. With carbon dating and such we can tell it's at least a certain age. This dating process goes a bit farther than them and tells the full age with surprising accuracy. There could be more dating proccesses that go back that far to tell the age of the earth but geology isn't my thing.

People (Christians and non-Christians) have created & added to controversy with respect to evolutionary theory. There is no real conflict. I have not heard/read one argument that shows any real conflict which is logical &/or fact based. I have heard/read a great deal of misunderstandings from both sides. A lot (if not all) of it is unresolved due to pride.