One glaring problem with the "earth is only 6000 years old" conjecture, is that its proponents started with the premise that the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so (as some interpret it), so let's find evidence to support this idea, and ignore the vast amount of evidence that contradicts it.

People who believe that confuse symbolism with facts.

Yes, those people are quite active at fabricating evidence to support what they imagine staying written in the Bible. Suchet und Ihr werdet finden! (seek ye, and ye shall find / Matthew 7:7 (Wycliffe New Testament))

How old is our Earth? 5000 years or 5 billion years! In order to prove their Theory of Evolution, the evolutionists assume the Earth has existed over billions of years because they think that it must have taken millions of years for the molten earth (which is assumed to have originally been a part of the sun or a part of a nebulae in the skies), to form proper environment and ‘a primordial soup’ for life to arise from it and, then, it must have taken billions or millions of years for the inanimate matter to form into molecular life, into amoeba and then, ultimately, to take the shape of man via mutations, adaptations and natural selection. So, Evolutionists estimate the earth to be between 4 and 5 billion years old and they believe life to have begun 4 or 5 million of years ago. The Geologists tell us that the earth is at least 400 million years old. But, the physicists tell us that the earth cannot have possibly existed more than 40 million years. An important question, therefore, is whether the history of the earth is that old. If it is not, then the whole Theory of Evolution falls to the ground and the age of fossils, rock, etc. cannot be billions or millions years. It would be meaningful to refer to six volumes of Mathematical and physical papers of Lord Kelvin, the founder of modern thermo-dynamics in which he refuted the vast ages in geology. Because of strong bias of the evolutionists against writings, Kelvins’s proofs about the young Age of the earth are not reported in popular publications. But these are substantial proofs, worth studying. These proofs are based on world-wide phenomena and set strict limits on the age of the earth--while it would not be possible to give extensive excerpts of all the proofs, it would suffice here to state briefly his proofs, based on (1) the shape of the earth and (2) the earth’s magnetic core. 1. Proof relating to the shape of the earth. Kelvin had good data showing that the earth’s rotational speed is slowing down. Using these data, he showed that if one went back a few billion years in time as the evolutionists would want us to go, the earth would have been rotating at least twice as fast as it is rotating to-day. Now, the evolutionists says that, in the beginning, i.e. few billion years ago, the earth was a molten mass. So, Kelvin argues that if a molten earth were spinning at high speed in the past, the faster the spin, the more it would tend to spread out. To make this principle clear, an example may be given. ‘let us take a string of skaters and let us try to whirl the string around with high speed. The skater at the other end of the string has a large centrifugal force on us: a force that pulls outward with a force proportional to the square of the speed. Kalvin argued that, on cooling, the molten earth-spinning much faster than now-would have let a huge bulge in the equatorial region and, so, the continents would have formed mainly in the equatorial region rather than going more in the north and less in the south as they stand now. The continuents would have circled the earth round its equator. Moreover, the bulge, which would have formed because of rotation and great centrifugal force, and which would have been part of those continents round the equator, would have been 40 miles higher than any continent at present is. But since the continents, at present, are not encircling the earth at the equator and the bulge is not that high, it shows conclusively that neither the earth was, previously, a molten mass or part of a nebula nor is it billions of years old but rather the earth is much younger in years. 2. Argument relating to earth’s Thermal state. Kelvin’s second proof relates to the Earth’s thermal state. Kelvin reasoned that, if the Earth were white-hot in the beginning as the evolotionists assume, then it would have lost heat rapidly by radiation from its surface. According to the laws of physics, this radiation would be proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. So the surface would not cool very rapidly but the cooling would progress inward, thus forming a thermal gradient. Comparing the measured thermal gradient and his theorethical work, Lord kelvin showed that, even if the Earth were originally a molten mass, it would have cooled down to have the present thermal gradients in much less than 24 million years, But, since the continents to-day are not circling the earth’s equator nor is the bulge as high as it should have been, it shows that the earth, originally, was not a molten mass and so, the question of its having cooled down to the present state in millions of years also does not arise. On the other hand it proves that its rotational speed has been lowering comparatively over a smaller period and it was originally, not that hot. Considered on these lines, it would come to be only 5,000 years if this factor is additionally kept into consideration that 5,000 years ago, there was a nuclear catastrophe and there were also huge floods. 3. Earth’s magnetic core It is now well-known that the earth’s magnetic field is due to electric current circulating in the core of the earth; it is not a permanent magnet but an electromagnet. A permanent magnet is that which does not require an electric current but the Earth’s magnet requires electric current. The reason for believing the earth’s magnet to be electromagnet is that most of the earth is too hot, especially the core of the earth is very very hot as compared to its surface. If the Earth’s magnet were a permanent or natural magnet, it would have got destroyed by now because a permanent magnet gets destroyed by high temperature. Now it should be known further that an electromagnet continually dissipates energy because it continually uses up electric current. Further since the earth’s magnet is of the value of 8x1022 ampere meters squared, which is a very large number, the Earth’s magnetic field must be utilising a large supply of energy to keep it going and, thus it must be heading towards energy shortage. It would be useful to know that Sir Horace Lamb using Maxwell’s equation, derived the equations for the earth’s circulating current. Horace Lamp also showed that, after these currents began to flow and produce Earth’s electromagnet, they would decay very slowly and take some thousands of years to decay. It is common experience that when we switch off light, the current does not stop immediately but, it takes a few micro or milli seconds to decay. In the case of the earth, if no more energy is added to its electromagnet after its start, it would take a few thousand years for the current and the associated magnet to die out. It has been found that the time taken for decay or dying out is proportional to the square of radius and, since the Earth’s core has a radius of a little more than 3x1012, the current flowing in this conducting core takes a few thousand (not millions or billions) years to die out. Now it has further been discovered that there are 810 megawatts of power being used by the Earth’s electromagnet. The important question is: "Where from this huge power has been coming? What is its source?" --The evolutionists are unable to answer from where this energy has been flowing for billions of years? The currents are still flowing but they are decaying. Most Evolutionists are aware of this fact but are not ready to accept it because they can't give up their ‘sacred’ belief that the world is 4.5 billion year old. However, more and more number of scientists are now coming to believe on the basis of scientific observations that the Earth’s magnet is becoming weaker. This therefore, leads one to the conclusion that the Earth’s magnet is only a few thousand (5000 years) old and that it has slowly been weakening and will after a grave nuclear catastrophe, revert back to its original state even as the earth’s axis also will change because of huge nuclear explosions. 4. The strength of the earth’s magnet. The strength of a magnet is called the ‘Magnetic moment’. In 1835, Gauss, great scientist and mathematician, the magnetometer to measure the earth’s 'magnetic moment' after handling the statistical problem raised due to many anamolies in the earth’s magnetic field, such as many little disturbances in various regions. Gauss made measurements at many places on the surface of the earth and for a long period of time. The present value of the earth’s ‘magnetic moment’ is 8x1022 ampere meters squared. Since the year 1835, earth’s magnetic moment was evaluated once every decade and it was found that the magnetic moment is decaying. Sydney chapman who, in a monography, has given the values of magenetic moment upto 1940, has stated that this decay of the earth’s magnetic moment is the most remarkable world-wide phenomenon. The decay, it should be noted, is about 5% a year. A government publication by the Department of commerce, ESSA (Environmental Science Services Administration) of America has given the data from 1835 to 1965. Since 1940, about 100 magnetic observatories over the world have been taking data for periods of a little more than a year at a time. On the basis of these data, it has been concluded that the magnetic moment’ has been running down. The reader would be surprised to know that, in the above-mentioned report, the Evolutionists, who published it, have, in the very first part expressed their opinion which can be summed up in these words: ‘We know that the rock tell us that this couldn’t have happened that it is happening. If this continues, the Earth’s magnetic field will be gone in the year 3991, i.e., in about 2000 years from now." One may ask these evolutionists: "If within the next 2000 years, earth’s magnetic momentum 8x1022 ampere meters squared will have gone, then what would you say about millions or billions of years back? What was its momentum then? Can you imagine or can you work out? Can you now say that the age of the rocks and the Earth is billions of years knowing that the magnetic field shields the earth from cosmic rays? Can you also say that the Earth’s environment or the rate of decay of certain radioactive metals, or the rate of cosmic radiation has been the same? A saner thinking would show that, if the present magnetic moment of the Earth will last only for 2000 years, then the Age of Earth cannot but have been only 5000 years, or in any case, it could not have been millions or billions of years. The calculation based on data about earth’s magnetic moment so far published, will point out that, if we take into consideration the rate of weakening of the Earth’s electro-magnetic field, we can’t go further back than 5000 years from now. The world cycle is, therefore of only 5000 years duration. In fact, a study of the data collected by Gauss and later collected and published by the Department of Commerce, ESSA would reveal that the half life of the Earth’s magnetic Field is 2500 years. Tremendous upheavels in the form of earthquakes, floods and environmental changes occurred when the first 2500 years of the world cycle elapsed. This is about 500 years before Christ. Then 1250 years after the first 2500 years, i.e. 3750 years after the beginning of the world Cycle, half of the half life also ended so that, since the last 1250 years, we have been in the last phase of the Earth’s magnetic moment cycle. The calculation based on data about earth’s magnetic moment so far published will point out that, if we keep into consideration, the rate of weakening of the Earth’s electromagnetic field, we can’t go further back than 5000 years from now. The world Cycle is, therefore, of only 5000 years duration, its half life being equal to 2500 years. At the end of the 5000 years cycle, the magnetic moment changes again due to nuclear explosions so that the core of the earth absorbs more energy to start once again, from where it had started 5000 years ago to compete another cycle and thus it goes on endlessly – one cycle following another ad infinitum.

There are a lot of lengthy answers to this one, so I'll cut to the chase: No - it's bollocks!

With respect to the petrified wood having been cut by chain saws, check out this http://www.nps.gov/pefo/naturescience/petrified-wood.htm (last paragraph) http://www.ocregister.com/articles/park-canyon-petrified-1165215-wood-people So, the claim is not that these trunks were cut with a chainsaw. It is that the stresses under which they had been places after they were petrified had caused them to break cleanly into segments AS IF they had been cut by a chainsaw.

No, its not possible.

It would do you well to never ever ever listen to anything that comes out of Kent Hovind's mouth. He argues against points that scientists don't even make just to sound like he's got the one-up on them. There is absolutely no evidence that Earth is only a few thousand years old. People get that by reading the Bible and that is the only way people get that.

Yes it is possible that the Earth is ~6000 years old like Kent Hovind teaches. I don't think I would trust all of his theories though. I don't think petrified wood was cut with a chain saw unless you made a chain saw blade that can cut through rock. I think you might be referring to the petrified trees that extend through different Earth strata.

Anythings possible but I would say its definitely not 45 billion years old and likely not 5,000 I would guess something like 10,000 years old

Anonymous' answer is not to be taken seriously, despite the efforts put in to it. In reality there is NOT any evidence to state that the earth is only 5000 years old. Most of his argument is based on the earths electromagnetic field, but upon research you fill find much of his information and assumptions heavily flawed. On top of this, Carbon dating has shown humanity to be far far older, let alone the earth. Those who argue carbon dating is wrong also have no evidence whatsoever. Carbon dating's first major testing was on Egyptian artifacts, where the actual age was already known through written remains. And how about the dinosaurs? I suppose we were just chillin' with them for a while, eh? The earth being 5000 yrs old an old joke that's not even funny.

The Earth is around 4.6 billion years old. There are fossil records that date back to 75 million years ago. I would say it is not possible that the earth is only 5,000 years old.

No, it has been proved beyond all doubt that in fact the Earth is millions of years old, not 5000 years old.

Actually the Earth is between 4.5 to 5 billions years old, it just went in for a complete overhaul 5,000 years ago!!!

how can an old piece of wood relate to the actual earth as a whole? its just a 5000 yr old piece of wood

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. So no, it's not possible