Compare opinions of world leading experts and influencers.

FAQ Send Feedback Sign Up Login

Religion Science Topic Index

Add Expert Opinion Edit Question Edit Implications History

Is the earth approximately 6000 years old? (as opposed to 4.5 billion)

There are two contradictory accounts of the age of earth. One is the scientific account, which claims that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. The other is a biblical account, which claims that the earth is approximately 6000 years old. The scientific position is that there is overwhelming evidence for their view, while Christian Science points to contradictions and anomalies in that position.

Implications to Other Questions

Did complex life evolve through the process of natural selection?

	Is radioactive dating accurate?
	Should the Bible be interpreted literally?

Experts and Influencers

Suggest Expert Quote (click to expand, no login required)

Agree

Experts In Science

Russell Humphreys Creationist Physicist

Mostly Agree

Nearly a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old...

Edit Pitches

01 Jun 1991 Source

Sub-Arguments Of This Expert:
Is radioactive dating accurate?
Disagree

Experts In Christianity

Albert Mohler President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Agree

Given the human tendency toward inconsistency, there are people who will say they hold both positions. But you cannot coherently affirm the Christian-truth claim and the dominant model of evolutionary theory at the same time. Personally, I am a young-Earth creationist. I believe the Bible is adequately clear about how God created the world, and that its most natural reading points to a six-day creation that included not just the animal and plant species but the earth itself.

The God Said Pitch

Edit Pitches

07 Aug 2005 Source

Sub-Arguments Of This Expert:
Should the Bible be interpreted literally?
Agree

Disagree

Experts In Science

Kenneth Miller Biology Professor, Christian

Disagree

Is there any possibility within the limits of science as we know it, that this earth is between 6000 and 10000 years old? The answer is no, not unless somebody has fooled with the laws of chemistry and physics. ... To accept that the geological evidence could tell us that the earth is as old as it is and yet that the Earth was actually created 6000 years ago requires that [the] creator [is] a charlatan, and I don't reject that on scientific grounds, I reject that on theological grounds.

The Incoherent Pitch

Edit Pitches

18 Aug 2008 Source

Experts In Christianity

Merle Hertzler Born Again Atheist

Disagree

Scientists tell us it would have taken billions of years for the light to have made that journey from the distant stars. If the light did indeed come from those stars, then the light left those stars billions of years ago. And if the light was traveling for billions of years, than the stars must be very old, and the universe is very old.

Edit Pitches

01 Jan 2006 Source

Encyclopedia

Wikipedia World's Largest Encyclopedia

Disagree

Modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Edit Pitches

27 Apr 2009 Source

Comments

Add Your TakeOnIt (click to expand, no login required)

0 Points OmnipotentRabbit 10 Apr 2010 Stance on Question: Disagree

The evidence is all at arm's reach of everyone to see. Whoever lets the Church tell them what they should believe and blind themselves to all other fountains of knowledge has no willpower.

-2 Points brian gibbs 05 Jun 2010 General Comment

All science is theoretical. Carbon dating was created by man. Science was created by man. The earth and the universe was created by GOD with no mistakes. Science was created by man that has countless contradicting mistakes.

0 Points jesus chriminy 17 Jul 2010 General Comment

science has shown us how the earth was formed, and the universe itself, without science we would be no better than apes, and science is the only way for humanity to advance, religion is a coping mechinism humans have invented to cope with things they dont understand, do your research on the first religions, actually i'm just going to say you are a ignorant fool, but i guess religion really is the opiate of the masses, the stupid unevolved massed

0 Points Anonymous 22 Aug 2010 General Comment

God is the creator of all things the earth, the Universe and people like you who deny him. If we came from apes who then created the apes? and if the apes came from the first mammal species who than created them? The answer is no matter what scientists are trying to disprove. They have no answer to how these things, whether its a piece of rock, or a living organism were created. Someone must have put them there, and that someone is your almighty God.

0 Points Benja 22 Aug 2010 Editorial Comment

You're addressing a different question: Must God exist to explain how the universe began?.

0 Points art 22 Aug 2010 General Comment

Oh yeah Art is my name.

0 Points Herminio Quebrar 10 Jun 2010 General Comment

in the vision of Moses, he saw that the earth was the first creature object in the universe follow by the moon and the sun, then next the billion billion matter that found in the universe. and i hope that no objection if i say these are came from one origin the god. my question for those who believe that the earth was 6000 years old...is, why these matter separated with a billion light year away from each other if the creation was 6000 years ago. i mean zero time from god these object separated and travel away from god as past as the speed of light and 6000 years are enough. please explain ,

0 Points Benja 05 Jun 2010 Stance on Question: Disagree

"All science is theoretical. Carbon dating was created by man. Science was created by man. The earth and the universe was created by GOD with no mistakes. Science was created by man that has countless contradicting mistakes."

God made colors because He didn't want us to see the world in black and white.

0 Points herminio quebrar 24 Jul 2010 General Comment

the creation is not magic when the god says the words let there be light(gen 1:3) he never speak the magic spell but the truth is, his mouth was release the intense sound energy to create the light, but the transposition of energy into matter takes a million of years not in 24 hours or 7 days. the big bang is the voice of god (psalm 29:8,,Psalm 33:6 king james version) the science and the bible have no disparity.

0 Points jesus chriminy 17 Jul 2010 General Comment

see, this retard proves my point

0 Points Innocent Bystander 26 Aug 2010 General Comment

Question then, if the bible is the most consitent book written in the history of man kind, the majority of hard-core evolutionists become confirmed creationists after indepth study meant for disclaiming creationism, and there has yet to be actual scientific proof given to proove the age of the earth, which of you are right?

1 Point Packbat 19 Mar 2010 Stance on Question: Disagree

The only way anyone would suggest the Earth is less than a billion years old is by hypothesizing without actual evidence. Sure, a few thousand years sounds plausible if you don't anything about science, but every field of endeavor which looks back farther than living memory - including plain-old history - suggests clearly that the Earth is older.

-1 Point Benja 19 Mar 2010 Stance on Question: Disagree

Actually, Russell Humphreys has a PhD in physics, yet still believes in a young earth. It's a gem of an example of motivated cognition and mental compartmentalization.

0 Points Packbat 19 Mar 2010 General Comment

When he is hypothesizing that the earth is about 6000 years old, he's not doing so based on the actual evidence available in his field - that's what I mean.

0 Points Innocent Bystander 26 Aug 2010 General Comment

But again, why do those who seek to disprove the bible by indepth study later turn around and say they were wrong and scientific evidence prooves in an all-powerful creator? I am not being closed minded but truly curious when I ask you, do you yourself have actual proof (scientific, mathematical, etc.) to supply when you claim an old earth. And do you know for absolute certain that this Russell Humphreys is not using evidence as the basis of his hypothesis. Isn't a HYPOTHESIS an EDUCATED GUESS based on PRIOR KNOWLEDGE?

1 Point JGWeissman 06 Mar 2010 Stance on Question: Disagree

There is no reason to even be considering this hypothesis. No credible evidence has suggested it.

-1 Point Len Robertson 28 Sep 2008 Stance on Question: Neutral

The discovery of planets orbiting other stars ends the debate with neither the creationists nor the evolutionists winning. Granted, the creationists will continue to claim that there is no written proof that the other planets are more than 5000 years old.

Unfortunately, we have recently learned that nearly all stars have planets, they can be seen and photographed, and life is everywhere. Detection of other civilizations is only a decade or two away. Imagine how surprised those civilizations will be when they are told their histories end 5000 years in the past, regardless of their own written evidence to the contrary.

As for evolutionists, we didn't come from the muck. We weren't a lucky accident resulting from lightning striking amino acids. A more likely possibility is that poly extremophiles rained down upon this planet from the moment it formed and eventually some of them found a foothold and prospered.

Where did we ultimately come from? Maybe, we came from PSR B1620-26 b, the planet 13 billion years old that has been nicknamed Methuselah. Maybe we came from an even older planet? Maybe we came from an earlier universe? Whatever the answer, it won't be found here on Earth.

Just another reason for Humanity to get its fat ass of this tired old rock.

Ciao for now,

Len

P.S. I’m inclined to think the Intelligent Design theory has credence because I have to wonder what environment could naturally produce poly extremophiles as wild as Deinococcus Radiodurans, called by NASA Conan the Bacterium? There must have been an intelligent hand involved in the process.

0 Points Benja 09 Sep 2008 Editorial Comment

Additional questions linked via implications are required here for the various creationist arguments to be separated out. E.g.:

Speed of light changing over time argument
Geological arguments
Radioactive dating arguments

Many of the arguments presented by Dr. Russell Humprheys 11 appear to be "strawman arguments".

0 Points Ahmet Engin 08 Jul 2010 Stance on Question: Disagree

It is impossible. The evidences about papyrus writings of Pharoahs are proved to be more than 6k years old, fossil records are also proved.
I think we question the wrong part of the Bible statement of 6000 year-old world. In Islam, we have the same theory but it says " 6 days of time, it was created!".
Careful, in another sentence, Prophet Mohammed said that 6 days is a measurement that means 6 equal but very long period of time. Let us say 1 billion of years for a day in those sentences?