How old is the earth? Creationist say its about 6,000 yrs old based off the bible and Evoluionist say its 4.6?

Question

billion years old based off science, studies, testing, carbon-dating, other radioactive -dating, fossil records, the earth layers, and much more. Which do you believe?

Answer 1

4.6 billion. After all, there's no belief in fact.

Answer 2

The debate over the age of the earth has been building since geologists first started dating rock strata and Darwin introduced us to the concept of evolution. Whether it's billions of years old or only a few thousand is a topic that seems to be impossible to come to an agreement on. Most people believe one or the other, completely ignoring all evidence contrary to their beliefs. A few attempts have been made to reconcile the two but rebuttals to the arguments seem to come faster than the theories themselves. I believe the answer to this question lies right there in the first chapter of Genesis and one need only look to the original Hebrew scriptures. "Old earthers" rely on science while ignoring the Bible and "young earthers" blindly stick to the King James Version of the bible while ignoring science. The keys to unlocking this mystery require first, an open mind, and second, a look at what was originally written about creation. I am vehemently opposed to allowing one's personal bias to get in the way of the truth. We must start from the scriptures and learn from them, not bring our own preconceived notions to the scriptures. Every English version of the Bible that I've found has shown signs of personal bias in the translation. No two translations completely agree with each other and even the KJV has been revised several times. If you have ever sat in church trying to follow along with what the pastor is reading and found all the words don't match up it's because you're reading from different "editions" of the KJV. In this essay, I will use the most common edition of the KJV as a reference only. It's the version that is most widely read in the English speaking world and it's also the version that Dr. James Strong used as a reference for his "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible". Strong's Concordance is considered to be the most accurate resource for Biblical study and is certainly the most widely read. These are the only two references I use in my work unless otherwise noted.

Now, let us start "In the beginning".

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

"In the beginning" comes from the Hebrew word "reshiyth" meaning "first" and the word heaven comes from shamayim meaning "sky", so the first verse should read "First, God created the earth and sky."

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

In the first sentence, the translations for the words "was", "without form" and "void" are not completely accurate. The Hebrew meanings of these words are:

"was"
hayah meaning become or come to pass

"without form"
tohu meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface)

"void"
bohu meaning to be empty; a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin

In the second sentence, the "Spirit" of God comes from ruach meaning wind and "face" is from paniym meaning "surface.

There are a couple of ways to interpret this verse so I will give both possible translations.

1. The earth became desolate and empty, darkness was over the face of the deep. The wind of God moved over the surface of the waters.
2. It came to pass that the earth was laid waste and ruined, darkness was over the face of the deep. The wind of God moved over the surface of the waters.

As you can see, both versions say the same thing. We'll come back to this after looking at verse 3.


Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

This verse is actually translated pretty accurately, at least close enough that nothing is really lost in the translation. The only reason I even mentioned this verse is because it's important to subject at hand.

Let's put all three verses together and see what the scriptures tell us. I will take the liberty to paraphrase:

First, God created the earth and sky. The earth became a wasteland, desolate, empty and ruined. Darkness covered the surface of the oceans. God caused a wind to blow over the waters.

As we can see, the Hebrew Scriptures paint a different picture than the one we've been taught. If the scientists are right about their old earth theory, then millions (or billions) of years could have passed between the original creation and destruction of the earth. The scriptures do not tell us how much time passed nor the reason for the destruction. Since the details were not given to us, we can only speculate.

Because of the fossil record and the study of rock strata, scientists believe that the earth is billions of years old and dinosaurs have been extinct for at least millions of years. They very well could be right without compromising the inerrancy of scripture.

The leading scientific theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs is a meteor impact in the Yucatan Peninsula:

"The shock wave from the impact would indeed have triggered massive earthquakes in the region and indirectly triggered other earthquakes around the globe. A tsunami would have formed from the impact, which occurred in a shallow sea. The giant waves would also have been generated by the earthquakes and undersea landslides triggered by the shock wave."

"The dust thrown up by the impact, the soot generated by the firestorms and the smog formed from the oxides of nitrogen and sulfur particles would have blocked sunlight for many months. The surface of the Earth would have plunged to freezing conditions -- typically 70 degrees Fahrenheit below normal -- and photosynthesis would not have been possible, even if plants had survived the fires and acid rain."

This scenario certainly fits the description of the wasteland as depicted in the Hebrew Scriptures. The earth would certainly have become desolate, empty of life and ruined. Darkness would have covered most of the earth. In Genesis 1:2, God caused a wind to blow ridding the planet of the soot and dust particles that caused the darkness giving the earth light once again as seen in Gen 1:3. Once there was light again, the rest of the new creation process could begin.

As you can see, this is an issue that can be laid to rest. Billions of years ago, God created the earth and sky (probably at about the same time as the rest of the cosmos), it was populated with the plants and animals that we now see only as fossils. At some point the earth was destroyed in a great catastrophe, not only causing the extinction of plants and animals but also altering the topography of the earth. Somewhere around 6 to 10 thousand years ago (according to theologians) God "re-terraformed" the planet, created the new plants and animals and, of course, man.

Answer 3

It is at least 4.6 billion years old.
I'm not Christian, and I still don't see how the age of the Earth, as determined through science conflicts with Genesis.

After all, who am I to say how long God's days are?

Most Christians I know also believe in evolution. More people are begining to realize that the creation story is likely more symbolic than word for word truth. I think the churches have more of a problem with this adjustment as their premise for faith in their religion is that they have all the answers and are always right. It makes it difficult to admit that maybe they are still learning how to interpret the bible, because it calls the rest of what they "know" into question.

Answer 4

I believe the Evolutionist, but from a Creationist point of view. God had to have the planet all ready for us. He could have created it as it stands with a mere thought, but what fun would that be? Who said one of his days equals 24 hours? How about shy of a billion years?

I think He has a reason for everything, including the rule of the reptiles. Adam and Eve were truly his, the first of what we know to be humans, the first to be self conscious and of free will.

Think about what was NOT known when the Bible was written. What would be said by a true Creationist if the Bible had said that the world was flat, as what was believed back then? Would they still be so insistent? Probably; satellite photos would be some kind of conspiracy.

Man wrote the bible (by the hand of God and Jesus, but man is quite flawed, even when using a perfect hand). The bible was rewritten by the Spanish Inquisition. You have to take that into consideration.

I believe that the scriptures are true events, and that everything said is by the word of the lord, BUT, I honestly do not believe everything is so literal. How can one believe it all to be literal when the Bible has to be translated? For example, when Jesus said he would "tear down the temple and rebuild it within 3 days time", he was referring to his rising from the dead, not the temple in which he was standing in at the time. Yet, no where is that literally translated within the bible. That is just one of thousands "translations".

To understand the Creation, with a reasonable intelligence and good faith, one could easily come to the conclusion that the creation of the earth didn't happen in six days (human time), but over billions of years=six God Days.

Answer 5

Evolution is not observable and but merely calculated science. One example is carbon-14 dating which is based on assumptions - like what was the carbon-12 to carbon-14 ratio in the past? What was the rate of decay? All based on guess work. Millers experiment was also a waste of time, because life needs 100% left handed amino acids. Where is the massive record of transitional fossils which was suggested by Darwin? Where is the evidence of mutations which add genetic information - zero - none? We all know that mutations reduce information and are the opposite of evolution? How does a mindless pool of mud create complexity and intellengence? People need to wake up and smell the coffee!

It's time to open up the Bible. The Bible is clear that the world is a little more then 6,000 years old.

Answer 6

The earth is neither 6000 years old nor 4.6 billion years old.

I often get a laugh out of this question:

Do you believe there is life in outer space?

Because my question is:

Where do you think we live?

Where is earth if not in Outer Space?

So to answer your question....The Earth has no age as we know it because it always was and always will be....simple as that. Oh and you mean what happens if the sun Nova's ...well heck we will be long gone from here that's for sure...What do you think the Sun Nova is like the Second Coming or what?

Answer 7

I am Republican, and my guess would be 4.6 Billion years old.
And sorry to tell you, it's not the Evolutionists that say 4.6 Billion, it's Scientists.
Who by the was over the last 30 years have pretty muched dismissed Evolution, as previously taught to be about as accurate as Creation.
The current view, at least for Man, is NOT Evolution, but the Theory that there have been many forms of "Man", Erectus, Neanderthal ect...That did not Evolve into Modern Man, Homo Sapien, rather were Natures experiments that did not make it.
Just an added little FYI...

I realize you were just Trolling, but thought I would give you the correct answer anyway...

Answer 8

I once heard a guy who had advanced degrees in religion and science. He said that, as a Christian, he had no problem believing in evolution, the big bang, and all that.

After all, God can use whatever methodology God wants to create the universe.

As a scientist, however, he had all kinds of questions about it.

The Bible was not intended to be a science book or a history book. It was intended to be a collection of writings that reveal who God is, who humanity is, how humanity rebelled against God by trying to be our own god, how God paved the way for reconciliation back to Himself through Jesus.

The point he was making is that maybe they are compatible after all. Maybe it doesn't have to be an "either/or" scenario, like so many make it out to be. Maybe the solution is "both/and".

Answer 9

One way they can tell the age of the earth is strata layers. This is innacurate - Mt. St. Helen left layers in a matter of days which at a later dig would lead people to believe that they were digging down over a million years.

Carbon dating is not accurate. Fossil records go with strata layers, so they may be flawed, too.

Many "creation minded" scientists believe the earth is over 10,000 years old. Yet, all accounts of man on earth is about 6000, or so.

Answer 10

Carbon Dating said that the earth was millions of years old. Because carbon dating said the earth was that old, they did more testing for the moon. So on the first trip to the moon, they had big snow-like shoes on the landing equipment because (of what carbon dating said about the earth) they thought that the moon would have a foot or so worth of dust on the moon because it had never been touched in this long amount of time they thought it had lived. But when they got there, all there was of dust was a little puff. There was only 2 inches. So obviously carbon dating is flawed. Which leads to the conclusion that carbon dating was most-likely flawed when they dated the earth.

Answer 11

I believe that God created the universe 6,000 years ago. Created the heavens and the earth on day one, the other planets and stars on day four. Did everything in six days.