I do not think that Ken Ham's model that the world is only 6,500 years old is accurate. But I also do not know for sure if it isn't. I think when dealing with topics such as these, it is all about what faith and beliefs people have. I think it is more important to believe anything is possible.
Ken Ham is a quack of the largest degree and dangerous to the world at large with the misinformation he spews on a daily basis. He flies in the face of scientific fact, and even does so to children. Saying the earth is 6,500 years old is like saying New York City has one person
There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the Earth is billions of years old so I do not believe Ken Ham's model, stating that the world is only 6,500 yeas old. It is not accurate in anyway. I hate when people try to cling to these archaic and false pieces of information.
It is difficult to imagine a person having a degree in evolutionary biology, supposedly having to have learned the current knowledge in that field, going against all of science to propose a model that is fundamentally against all of that. I do know that there have been times in history when current knowledge has been turned on its head, but this man is going up against all of science by insisting on a literal interpretation of the Bible. This amounts to claiming that virtually all disciplines are mistaken on the basis of his interpretation of one book. It is not even a profound insight that advances knowledge, but one that serves to limit all intellectual pursuit in pursuit of religious dogma.
no, it is not, since we have dated a lot of rocks and fossils to be billions of years old. i think that the earth has been here for a very long time, and to think that it is only this old is nonsense if you look at earth's processes.