It’s a mistake to say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It is a mistake, because this is not, in point of fact, what scientific inquiry tells us. Science tells us that some minerals on earth are at least 4.031±0.003 billion years old. Further inquiry tells us that some zircons (zirconium silicate crystals) that make up some of these very old rocks formed at least 4.404±0.008 billion years ago. The earth is, obviously, considerably older than this, but these are the oldest datable materials we have found thus far.

UPDATE!!: we have now found isotopically datable materials of presolar origin and can state to 5-sigma that they formed at least 5 billion years ago, but no more than 7 billion years ago.

These “presolar grains” were first predicted to exist in the early solar system in the 1970s, and advances in microscopy and nanotechnology have allowed us to actually isolate these distinct objects and test their isotopic properties. They aren’t just older than our sun, they’re also very much NOT FROM AROUND HERE. In fact, their properties align very much with the original predictions from the 1970’s of the isotopic composition of….a late-stage red-giant.

Now, it’s very reasonable to ask how we know these dates to this fairly impressive level of accuracy (and yes, when you’re talking about 4.4 billion years, a window of 8 million years is very, very accurate indeed). The answer has to do with properties of zircons, how they form, and statistical quantum mechanics.

Zircons are very hard, very durable crystals. They are frequent components of igneous minerals, solidifying out of molten rock. Because they are so hard and so durable, zircon crystals frequently survive the decomposition of their original igneous minerals by forces of erosion and wind up deposited in sedimentary or metamorphic rocks with their crystal structures intact. Scientists are able to isolate and analyze these crystals in order to study their structures and contents.

An interesting and useful property of zircons is that when these crystals form, they can trap radioactive elements, notably uranium. Some zircons contain up to 1% uranium by weight. All radioactive elements decay at an observable and constant rate which is described by quantum mechanics. I’m going to make a quick aside about quantum mechanics—the standard model of particle physics is one of the best and most thoroughly tested theories in the history of science. It has passed every test from the most mundane to the fairly recent discovery of the Higgs boson, with properties as predicted by the standard model, at the Large Hadron Collider. Quantum mechanics works. If it didn’t you couldn’t read this and I couldn’t write this (because semiconductors—the family of components that include transistors—make up the working parts of the computer or smartphone you’re using to read this and the working parts of the computer I’m using to write this now and semiconductors are quantum mechanical devices—if quantum mechanics didn’t work, neither would they). We know with great certainty, proven repeatedly in thousands of experimental tests that the standard model’s description of radioactive decay is accurate.

By measuring the ratios of decay products trapped inside the crystalline structure of zircon crystals, we can accurately determine their age over a very great amount of time. This is how we know that the oldest native mineral ever found on earth solidified out of molten rock 4.404±0.008 billion years ago. This is how we know that the oldest native rock found on earth’s surface, thus far, is 4.031±0.003 billion years old. These rocks did not simply appear. They, like all minerals, are the end products of geological and cosmological processes.

Calcium-aluminum inclusions or CAI’s are a type of crystal inclusion found in carbonaceous chondrite meteorites. These minerals are believed to be early condensates from the formation of the solar system. They are around 287 million years older than the oldest native minerals found on earth and constitute the oldest reliably dated material ever discovered with an age of 4.568±0.017 billion years. Now, because this is science I should point out that the dating method used in the case of CAI’s is different from the one used with Zircons. Instead of measuring Uranium decay products, we are measuring the ratio of lead isotopes present in the crystals. This also relies on radioactive decay, but has a greater sensitivity to certain factors. This is part of the reason for the comparatively large error range.

The Bible makes no such claim. In fact, the Bible makes no claims at all; it is a collection of independent books, many authored by people who did not know each other, and none of whom knew that what they wrote would one day be included in a work to be produced hundreds or thousands of years later. So, let’s leave the Bible out of this.

In fact, the 6,000 year old claim is not be found at any place in the books of the Bible. It just is not there.

So, where does it come from?

It comes from calculations by numerous scholars and historians, who used material they found within the Bible to create time lines from creation to the present day. Most influential among them was Bishop James Ussher who, in the mid 17th century, combed through over 10,000 books and manuscripts to fix the date of creation as late Oct 22, in the year 710 of the Julian calendar. This referred to a “Christian” year of 4,004 BC. His work was lauded as the most precise and reliable calculation among the many who had been estimating something similar, give or take a few millennia, here and there.

More recently, famed evangelist Harold Camping came up with his own date: 11,013 BC. Camping was the fellow who scheduled the end of the world and judgment day for October 21, 2011.

In summary, no one can believe the Bible said anything it did not actually say, and science has indicated an age which is somewhat older than the estimates of people who tried to noodle it out by obviously flawed interpretation of material in the Bible and other texts.

I personally don’t “believe” the science; there is nothing in science that requires belief. But I accept the findings of science as a reasonable estimate, and see nothing which challenges those findings.

[EDIT:] Evidently, my response has aroused the interest, if not the ire, of some folks who both wish to disabuse me, and who evidently think I have not read what they call “The Bible.”

There is nothing I can say here, of course, to convince anyone of my reading the Bible, so I won’t even try.

But as to the disabuse, I can only say that I cast my lot with those who present the physical evidence, as opposed to historical material whose provenance is not certain, to me. Readers are invited to scan the comments and decide, for themselves, which position is more likely to be true.

These assumptions about the Bible are all wrong!

The Bible does not clearly say that the Earth or the Universe were created just 6k years ago. That's just absurd and kind of unbelievable - I believe God created the Universe.

The first few chapters of Genesis talk about the creation, like it was done in 6 days. However, these days are to be taken as symbolic as the words written in Hebrew/Aramaic (the languages that the Old testament was written) are very roughly translated to English as we know it today. The Hebrew word for “day” can refer to many diferent lengths of time. As you may/may not know, these languages were very, very complex.

In Genesis we also read that animals were first created and then humans were created. It does not specify what animals were created nor how much time pssed between the animals and man being created.

As we know from the Bible account, there is nothing in the book, or in the whole Bible itself that proves the “6000 year old earth” idea.

I am very interested about topics such as astronomy, history and the Bible. The fact that people come up with their own theories and mind only about their own thoughts without ever doing some research makes me sad.

So many people could know about this, but the truth is allways obscured by false claims and even the Catholic church itself.

I do a lot of research in this topic, here's an article I found very informative: Science and the Genesis Account

Thank you for your time, hope you found my answer informative!

Let me tell you why I believe the world is over 4.5 billion years old. This age of the earth has been arrived at, slowly and step by step, as scientists refine existing methods and discover new ones. I’ll start at the beginning of modern research and list some important steps:

Early in the nineteenth century, Charles Lyell examined the great volcano of Etna on Sicily and studied the historical records of frequent eruptions. He noticed that each time it erupted, a new layer of lava would be added, causing the mountain to grow at a measurable rate. By knowing the height of the volcano, its approximate rate of growth and the frequency of eruptions, Lyall determined that the volcano must be several hundred thousand years old. At the edge of the volcano, under the first lava flows, he found fossil shells that were virtually identical to the shells of molluscs still found in the Mediterranean Sea. From this, he deduced that the fossils were geologically recent, that a hundred thousand years was geologically short and that the age of the earth must be immense. Because of Lyall's research, it was no longer possible to consider the earth to be only a few thousand years old.

In 1862, Lord Kelvin, Professor of Natural Philosophy at Glasgow University and regarded by his contemporaries as the greatest physicist of his day, announced that he had calculated the time it would take the world to cool down from its molten state. He calculated that this was between 20 and 400 million years. Later, Kelvin refined his calculations to within the range 20 to 100 million years and, later still, to some 20 to 40 million years. With the discovery of radioactivity, it was soon realised that the uranium present in the earth prolongs its cooling almost indefinitely. Kelvin's method only gives a minimum age, but by no means a true estimate.

Samuel Haughton, an Irish geologist, calculated that sediments were deposited on the ocean floor at the rate of "one foot in 8,616 years". He then calculated a minimum duration of around 2000 million years. Unwilling to accept such a long period, he scaled it back, by a factor of 10, to just 200 million years. This may not be an important dating method today, but it does lend confirmation to other dating methods.

Once the radioactive decay of uranium was discovered, it was only necessary to determine the rate of helium production and the amount of helium that had accumulated, to calculate the age of a rock. In the early years of the twentieth century, Lord Rutherford established the age of a rock as 500 million years, by measuring the amounts of radium and helium present. Strutt soon realised that some of the helium would have escaped as the rocks were crushed for analysis, leading to false short estimates of the ages of the rocks. The rock must have been even older, but the proof of that had to wait.

It was established that lead was the stable element resulting from radioactive decay of uranium. Since lead is not a gas, Holmes decided to determine the age of rocks by using the ratios of uranium and lead. Using rocks from the Devonian age, Holmes calculated that the Devonian age was at least 370 million years ago.

In 1922, Dr Aston discovered a new lead isotope which must have been the end-product of a new isotope of uranium. That isotope of uranium was isolated as uranium 235, which was present in very small proportions to uranium 238 and decayed at a much faster rate. Rutherford used this new information to arrive at an age of 3400 million years for the earth. Scientists were now getting close to the real age of the earth.

Iron meteorites contain almost no uranium, so any lead in them would be 'ordinary' or primeval lead, the amount of which could be used as the uncontaminated estimate for the earth itself, provided that the earth and meteorites had a common ancestry. In 1953, Fritz Houtermans used material from a meteorite to calculate the age of the earth as 4500 million years, plus or minus 300 million. In the same year, Patterson independently produced figures of 4510 and 4560 million years, using a basalt and a granite sample. In 1956, Patterson proved that the earth and meteorites had a common ancestry, thus validating the results.

Holmes felt that it was unsound in principle to rely on meteorites for calculating the age of the earth.He announced that, from terrestrial evidence, he had dated the earth to 4,500 million years, plus or minus 100 million years.

The oldest things so far found on earth are zircon crystals found in Western Australia, that are more than 4 billion years old. Moon rocks have been found to be just over 4 billion years old, evidence that the earth and the moon were formed at the same time and from the same material.

I believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but polls suggest that up to 44% of the American public believe that the world was created in its present form about 6,500 years ago. Which is quite simply mind-boggling.

Math Used by Young Earth Creationists Who Believe That the Earth Is About 6,000 Years Old

Bible literalists, sometimes called Young Earth Creationists (YECs) believe that as of 2008 the age of the earth is 6,050 years old. Some YEC beliefs vary, but none of them exceed 10,000 years as an outside estimate of the earth's age.

1. 148 million people

a. This estimate was given by the Public Information Office at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) on 12/19/05, in response to a message left by Pros and Cons of Controversial Issues.

b. The estimate is based on two Gallup polls on evolution/creationism taken in the 1990s. The representative from ICR presented the findings of the Gallup polls as "almost half" of all Americans believing in a young earth.

c. The female representative cited the 2000 U.S. census which put the population of the United States at 281 million people. Accounting for the growth rate of 3 million people a year she claimed that the current population of the United States should be around 296 million people, and then she divided that number in half.

d. As the Public Information Office representative said herself, this number includes children, and those who have "not yet made up their mind" about creationism.

2. 130 million people

a. The results of a 1997 Gallup poll showed that 44% of the public (roughly 130 million people) and 5% of scientists subscribe to the Creationist view that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

b. It is unclear whether all those who believe that God created man within the last 10,000 years also subscribe to the view that the earth is relatively "young" (10,000 years old), although the representative from ICR claimed that those 44% were all believers in a young earth.

3. 124 million people

a. The New York Times reported on a 2005 survey of 2,000 people by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life that found: "42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that 'living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.'"

b. The study explained in a footnote: "the terms 'creationism' and 'creationist' are used here to refer to the general belief that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time. We recognize that in other contexts the term 'creationism' is used to refer to a more specific set of beliefs, including the view that the earth is relatively young (e.g., 10,000 years old or younger).

c. 42 percent of Americans believing in a young earth would put the number of YECs at 124 million Americans.

4. Wikipedia's entry on Young Earth Creationism comments:

a. "Young Earth creationism has failed to make much of an impact outside of fundamentalist protestant denominations. Virtually all other Christian denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, reject the concept of Young Earth creationism."

Some good answers to this and a lot of good evidence based stuff. But if you are religiously inclined to debate that evidence let me propose some “"faith-like” thinking around this topic.

Question: why would God create an untrustworthy world?

In order to believe that the world is around 6000 years old I would have to disbelieve volumes of widely accepted science fact and theory. And nothing I have seen or heard from any religious standpoint adequately explains why I should consider doing that. God in the bible is not presented as a trickster or an unreliable being (some Old Testament moments not withstanding, and I won't count moody behavior or extreme faith requests and trials in this) and it is the common modern Christian belief that God is “there for you” And is your “rock.”

So even a fundamentalist should rightly question interpretations of the bible that literally and directly oppose the physical world and physical evidence. Instead they should consider the source and motivations of people who wish them to see God as being in opposition to the world he purportedly created.

Throughout the bible the world is presented as pure and people are presented as the corrupted. Even in the garden of Eden the physical world was without flaw, it was the humans who sinned. If you can find a single instance throughout the bible where the world is in error I would be fascinated to read it. So in light of this… Why would anyone of a religious standpoint want you to think that God and the physical world can't coexist? It is much more likely that this would be a belief designed to manipulate you than to bring you closer to God when viewed in this context. And there is plenty of evidence in the bible of false prophets, heretics, Pharisees etc.

so yeah, if you believe the bible you should probably also believe the universe, and disregard people who want you to think that the physical evidence is a trick or a lie.

Answer: if God is your rock, you should pay attention to any fossils you find.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Earth is 6000 years old. Nowhere.
The 6000 year idea comes from Bible scholars who add the geneologies in the Bible giving 40-45 yrs to individuals who are not given ages.

One of the problems with this is that Paul warns us against this in Timothy when he says not to "devote yourselves to endless geneologies" because it promotes dissention and conflict. It creates false doctrines and we see today the endless arguments like this and the faith looking ignorant in the face of science.

Further, the Bible says a day is like a thousand years to God and a thousand years a day. This shows that God is outside of our 3 or 4 dimensions of space and time, which if God is creator he would be.

Next, when looking at the 7 days we have to define "day". This is a measurement of the time it takes for the Earth to rotate once on its axis. But if God is outside of our dimensions then perhaps we are talking about a Godly universal day. Perhaps a rotation of the universe.

Further, even in our dimension of time said time is relative to distance from the the observation and velocity. Therefore time would have been "slower" as the Universe, so close to the point of "Big Bang" would have been moving at a much faster rate.

There is also some debate about the Hebrew word day as it is used without a definite article. In Hebrew this would not have meant a single 24hr Earth day but a division of some undefined period.

And given entropy as the Universe slows and cools the 4.5 Billon that Geology hypothesizes isn't correct either, as Geology fails to include space/time entropy into its calculations.

Either way, since modern physics points to the fact that reality is not infinite but that we are living in a "digital simulation" or hologram arguing over time is irrelevant.

Perhaps my hologram is 6000 years and yours 6 billion. Perhaps the world is only 6 seconds old. You can not mathematically prove that its isn't. And to try to otherwise is only mans arrogance.

I’m going to start with a disclaimer. Because of the wording of the question what follows is my personal belief.

When asked this question I’d have to ask this. Where does it specifically say that the Earth is 6,000 years old? The Bible does not even give us an actual birth date for Jesus, the most central figure to the Christian religion. Even Easter which celebrates, Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection falls on different days each year, set according to the phases of the moon. As our lord would have been crucified on a specific date, I have a problem with that aspect.

Now the Church would tell us that the point is not to concern ourselves with the actual dates, but with the meaning behind the celebration of his death and resurrection in scripture. Now if I’m OK with that. I have to accept that things like the age of the Earth are not important to my spiritual belief either.

However I do have a curiosity about things. While I don’t necessarily regard myself as intelligent enough to do my own independent research. I do read on those great thinkers who have. I’m also wise enough to appreciate that many great discoveries have been built on the foundations of earlier understanding. Which is what science does, it builds on earlier knowledge and asks questions about the nature of the world and universe in which we find ourselves.

The crux of the question posted is, “Do you believe the Bible or Science?”

I believe both, they’re not mutually exclusive of one another.

Based on all the above, I would state that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. As science has provided evidence of this.

To take the two Bible passages which say, “A day with the Lord is like a thousand years…” (2 Peter 3:8, Psalms 90:4) and then use those as a basis to craft a literal Creation timeline is shaky Biblical interpretation at best, and a made-up ideology ignoring science data at worst.

I believe the version given by science.

And you are presenting a false dichotomy.

This is not a “this or that” choice as many Christians don’t even agree with a 6,000 year Earth creation timeline interpretation of the Bible.

To Bible scholars, a purely literal interperation of the Bible which is composed of much allegory and symbolism either willingfully or simply ignorantly ignores centuries of traditional Bible hermeneutics, or the study and interpretation of the Bible. There are four different interpretations which traditional hermeneutics views Bible texts: 1. Literal 2. Allegorical 3. Moral, and 4. Anagogical ( mystical/or relating to the afterlife).

Those Bible passages say a day with the Lord “is like” a thousand years, which is a simile.

The concept of a 6,000 year creation is a very narrow interpretation of a few Biblical texts which many Bible scholars challenge as an incorrect interpretation of passages which the original authors intended as largely symbolic or allegorical not as a literal recounting of events.

Footnotes

Re: “Do you believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old according to science, or 6000 years old according to the Bible?”

I don’t “believe” in the Earth’s age. I conclude that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old from the empirical evidence established in geology.

The Bible says nothing about the Earth being only 6,000 years old. Young Earth creationist estimates of the age of the universe are based on calculations done by Archbishop James Ussher (The Annals of the World, A.D. 1658) and Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones (The Chronology of the Old Testament, A.D. 1993). Those estimates start from Genesis with the first 5 days of creation and add the genealogy of Adam to Abraham. These calculations assume that the first 5 days of creation can be neglected compared to the 2,000 years of the genealogy of Adam to Abraham ending at 2,000 BC.

Hence the young Earth creationist estimate of the age of creation at 6,000 years. It is based on an assumption.

We now know from the WMAP satellite measurements that the age of the universe is about 13.77 ± 0.059 billion years. Therefore, for Genesis to be true, the days of creation cannot be literal Earth days. The assumptions of Archbishop Ussher et al are therefore incorrect. Rather than neglecting the first six days of Creation in estimating the age of Creation, the entire genealogy of Adam through Abraham can be neglected.

A day for God in Genesis is about 13.77 / 6 = 2.295 billion years.

Young Earth creationist claims about a young Earth require all of the evidence in geology, the fossil record, astronomy, and cosmology to be false.

Young Earth creationist claims are easily assessed for consistency with their claimed source of authority – The Bible.

So what does the Bible say?

1) The Bible says that all of Creation is created only by God:

"For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on Earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things have been created through Him and for Him." Colossians 1:16

"All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." John 1:3

2) The Bible says that God never lies. God does not lie or create lies:

"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind." Numbers 23:19.

"God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie ..." Hebrews 6:18

3) The Bible says that God reveals Himself through His Creation:

"What may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:19-20

As God's Nature is only Truth, anyone can seek anything in God's Creation and find the truth. It does not matter whether one is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist, God reveals the same Truth to all, for it is not in God's Nature to lie.

4) The Bible says that God bids humans to explore Creation and to ask questions:

“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” Matthew 7:7

So:

- Only God brings all things into being;

- God works only truth and never lies;

- God reveals Himself in His Creation;

- God bids humans to explore and question His Works to learn His Nature.

If God is indeed constant, ever truthful, and reveals Himself in His Creation, then all God creates must be constant, truthful, consistent, and revealing of God. Science does exactly what the Bible bids humans to do: Explore God’s Creation and ask God questions to learn God’s Nature. Millions of people have devoted their lives over millennia doing just that: Exploring existence, asking questions, wondering, probing, learning, comparing experiences with others, repeating each other’s experiments, verifying observations, steadily refining what is true and casting out what is false.

Young Earth creationists cling to their beliefs by rejecting the findings of science on one of four bases, claiming that scientific evidence is:

• Created by Satan to mislead the faithful
• Violates Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3
• Created by God as illusions to test the faithful
• Violates Numbers 23:19 and Hebrews 6:18
• Fabricated and planted by humans in a worldwide conspiracy
• Violates Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3
• Just plain inconstant, inconsistent, and wrong
• Violates Numbers 23:19 and Hebrews 6:18

All of the above rationales violate what the Bible says about the nature of God and His Creation. One even resorts to calling God Satan. All of the above rationales are the exact same sin as committed by the Pharisees claiming that Jesus worked his miracles by a demon possessing him:

“But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, ‘It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.’ ” Matthew 12:24

Jesus warns that is an unforgivable sin:

"And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." Matthew 12:31

The greatest problem with young Earth creationism is that it rejects the very Bible young Earth creationists thump and blasphemes the very God they claim to praise.

Some great answers here already.

Personally I believe it is up to 5.1 billion years old, but let us not quibble.

What is ‘evidence’? Science has specific rules about evidence, and Young Earth Creationists understand neither the evidence for the age of the Earth nor the process by which that evidence was found and became accepted.

Every argument for a young Earth lacks scientific credibility and fails to meet the high standards science sets itself. On the other hand, there is masses of evidence supporting the age of the Earth being 4+billion years, and that evidence has passed those demanding standards.

But please, please don't take my word for it. If this topic is important to you, start by learning about the ‘'Scientific Method’ then about the process by which a hypothesis becomes an accepted scientific theory.

Having familiarised yourself with this process, look for yourself at the evidence, and see what you think.

I will add that if you can find scientific evidence that successfully supports YEC, evidence that has to be supported by the scientific community, then you will become one of the most famous humans who ever lived and guarantee yourself at least a Nobel Prize.

But so far, in hundreds of years, no such evidence has ever been produced.

Science and religion are not competing belief systems. We do not “believe” scientific theories, but accept them based on the evidence. I accept the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

The problem here is: does the Bible really say the earth is 6,000 years old? NO! Neither creation story in Genesis 1–3 gives an age of the earth. Instead, that age is from a human interpretation of the Bible.

Christians have always acknowledged that God has two books. One is obviously scripture. But the other book is Creation itself. After all, what did God create? The earth, right? (well, the entire universe, but the earth is part of that). So, studying Creation will tell us when and how God created. And what does science study? Creation!

Christians faced the problem of the age of the earth in the early 1800s. Even without radiometric dating, people could tell the earth had to be hundreds of millions of years old. This is how Christians responded:

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437; quoted by Stephen Neill in Anglicanism, Penguin Books, 1960, pg. 240.

So the question is poorly worded. It should say “Do you believe the evidence God left in His Creation that the earth is 4.5 billion years old or do you believe a human interpretation of the Bible that says the earth is 6,000 years old?”

Another way to put the question should be “why do some people put their interpretation of the Bible ahead of God?”

Several times the OT says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable. So you could also ask the question “Do you believe science that the earth orbits the sun (and moves) or do you believe the Bible that the earth is immovable and the sun orbits the earth?” But somehow no Christian (not even the most ardent young earth creationist) ever asks that. Hmmm. Can you say “double standard” or “hypocrisy”?

I derive my data from the only ‘good book’ that is authored by the subject in question itself… writ upon sediments… layer upon layer… like leafs in the diary documenting Earths past; each page a time capsule.

Of course, I’m just processing what others have actually read into it. I’ve not performed the spectral analysis of carefully excavated evidence that points to 4.5byo…but those who did, did so in ways that others can verify for themselves…a trail-of-breadcrumbs all can follow: The scientific method.

I acknowledge science has its limitations…we’ll never know all the answers…but, in terms of scale; The Earth itself is the ONLY ‘document’ containing the answer and the scientific method our best tool to translate it…not some antiquated geocentric, anthropomorphic ‘impression’ of what earth ‘looked like’ back when human awareness extended no farther than the unaided eye could see, but one made by using the latest data available to mankind in the 21st century.

…as far as finding answers; it IS “possible” those who stick their heads in the sand with white-knuckled grip on bible are on to something… it’s just that they’d have to open their eyes & look around whilst down there in order for such subterranean ventures to result in anything fruitful.

This crap again.

Even forgetting the overwhelming evidence that the Earth is at least 4 Billion years old, and even assuming you believe the bible is accurate, there is no information in the bible that allows you to decide the age of the Earth. NONE. It is not in there! Read it and see, don't listen to the idiots and sheep who keep spewing this nonsense. I spent several years of my life studying the bible and did well. I don't believe the bible to be the word of God myself, nor do I believe it is a precise and accurate document. However even if you do think the book is totally accurate nowhere does it contain information that could date the creation. LOOK, DON'T LISTEN TO THE RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS SPOUTING THIS STUFF. It isn't there.

The supposed evidence is based on the genealogies contained in the bible, and completely ignores the fact that these have gaps in them. They are taped over with supposed lengths of time that have been summoned from somebody's imagination, not based on anything real. The origins of this 6,000 years nonsense are in Christian religious extremism, which is just as much a force for evil as Islamic extremism. Most Christians do not believe the Earth to be 6,000 years old, including the Pope, who has gone on record as saying that the best people to work out the age of the Earth are scientists. He also believes in evolution, in case you're interested. This is a man who believes very firmly in the bible and in science, and finds that there is no conflict.

Anyone who thinks there is a conflict between the two is a religious extremist, an idiot or just ignorant. INFORM YOURSELF.

EDIT: Pardon the tone but I am sick of this nonsense.

First to debunk the 6,000 year old Earth nonsense - There is a tree in Sweden that has 9,550 rings - as we all (should) know, each ring represents a year, so this tree would have to be 3,550 years older than the Earth….. Next, ice forms layers from annual layers of snow just as tree rings form every year, so you can count them 1 by 1 all the way back in time. Until April 2017, we could go only go back about 800,000 years (yes 800,000 layers or annual snowfall) - then a 2.7 Million year old ice core sample was obtained in Antarctica in 2017 - so, MUCH older than 6K years.

Now, when radioisotopes were discovered, we became able to determine the age of certain types of rocks by analyzing how much of certain elements were present. Radioactive elements slowly decay in a predictable manner (potassium decays into argon, for example). When rock solidifies from molten lava, there is no Argon (a gas) present. The potassium in the rock will slowly radioactively decay to Argon over billions of years. We are then able to measure the relative amounts of potassium and argon in a rock to know how old the rock must be. The 1/2 life of Potassium is 1,250,000,000 years, so the ratio of K to Ar in a rock tells the age of the rock. Many known radioactive isotopes with different 1/2 lives all approach the same age of Earth to be about 4.5 billion years old.

To rephrase the question:

Is science or the Bible right about the age of the Earth?

• Science says the Earth is at least 4 to 5 billion years old.
• The Creationists, Young Earth Creationists that is, claim it’s only about 6000 years old.
• The Bible, in fact, gives absolutely no age to the Earth, or Universe for that matter.

It simply says, in the very first verse:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

As the account goes on, the preparation of the Earth, for the life it will have to eventually sustain, is broken up into 6 creative periods, each of which is of an unknown length. Those creative periods began after the creation of both the heavens (universe) and the Earth. Because the Earth was to become the home to a new creation, terrestrial living beings, it received special, or separate, mention in the opening verse of the Bible.

Consequently, any discussion about the length of the creative periods, called days in the account, is of no use for those (Young Earth Creationists) trying to say that the days were 24 hours long, because the Bible never included the actual creation of the universe and planet Earth in those creative periods.

As for the “day” debate, trying to prove how long they were, the Bible never quantifies their length, nor whether they were all of the same length. While the Bible does give us a general reference to calculate how long ago man was first created, that understanding still doesn’t contribute to our knowledge as to the lengths of those creative periods.

What does the Bible say about those creative “days?”

In fact, the Biblical usage of the word day is varied. It's meaning is dependent on the context in which it's used. The Bible says that the Earth, as in the heavens and the Earth, was in existence prior to the creative days.

As far as the Biblical creation account is concerned, the context doesn't support any specific time factor. For this reason, some say it's referring to a literal 24 hour day. However, even a complete lack of scientific understanding would not logically lead one to that conclusion. For instance, the amount of time necessary for molten rock to cool and solidify, on the grand scale of the Earth, would require far more than 24 hours.

Creationists have interpreted the Bible according to their belief, rather than basing their belief on what it actually says, and more importantly, what it doesn't say. Just as one might use the term day to represent an era, as in back in the day, so too the Bible, upon it's translation into modern English, uses the word day to refer to the unspecified periods of creative events.

Therefore, belief in the Biblical creation account is not synonymous with creationism. Additionally, the Bible and science are in agreement, because the Bible makes absolutely no statement about how old the Earth is.

This discussion is furthered in comments, which I urge you to read. They demonstrate that the bias of Creationists can not be addressed with logic, reason or actual proofs. Remember, the Earth was already in existence prior to the first creative day, so, how long they were is a moot subject when they’re used to determine, or prove, the age of the Earth.

There’s no “belief” involved here. If you totally ignore most fields of science (meaning that you have all the scientific knowledge of someone living in the 5th century BCE), you’re just refusing to accept reality.

You don’t “believe” science, you accept things found by science. The assertions - and the proofs - are there for anyone to check up on. Learn a little geology, especially chrono-geology, and you can check the age of rocks yourself.

Science is different from religion in one big thing - there’s no “authority” you have to believe just because he says something - you can study and become an expert too. (It’s difficult to study a god you can’t even see.)