The planet is far older than 6,000 years.I've proved the Earth is 6K years old from creation.com which you claimed I used. It's a nice source, but biased so I used other sites. Per the Roche limit, you have to start there and with the lunar recession, the estimate of the moon being 4.5 B yrs old cannot be right. AFAIK the recession has been constant -- Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer. You should know this since you're the guy with a telescope and camera setup lol.I dont have to prove the rate is not contact. We know how old the earth and moon are. You are saying that is false. The burden of proof lies with you.
Lol, lol, lol. These are just your assertions. Nothing I can use here.Every trait we possess, of course. In a difgerent environment, under different selective pressures, we would have evolved differently.
If this is it, then you need to take your telescope and camera and run along kiddie.
Didn't say Miller's an astronomer.He's not an astronmer, but a space artist lol. The Earth could've had a ring before, but I rather have the moon. Once the Roche limit breaks a satellite up, then it can't be put back together again.
It's from creation.com which you claimed I used. Thus, I started using it and they said that C-14 still remains in coal, diamonds, oil, fossil wood, etc. Thus, they could use radiocarbon dating, a form of radiometric dating, and it showed a young Earth.
You're wrong. If it really was "billions of years," then the C-14 would be gone.Well ... we don't use carbon dating to date "billions of years" ... I think we use uranium but I could be wrong ...
This was calculated in Roman times ... and the largest Roman number was M = 1,000 ... I'm guessing they carved four or five M's and decided to skip the remaining 4,700,000 ...