How old is the Earth?

[The Gospel of Christ]

The question isn’t how old the Earth is.
The question is when the Breath of God entered it.

We weren’t handed a geology textbook —
We were given Logos.

And Logos didn’t erupt into flesh until roughly 7,000 years ago, in the Garden of Eden.
That’s when the dust — also made by God, and standing upright long before — finally realized it was dust.
And God called it man.

That’s when humanity was formed not merely in biology,
but in spirit — in the image of God, with conscience, reason, and moral weight.

Everything before that?

Irrelevant.
Beautiful, mysterious, ancient, but pre-Logos.

To say the Earth is only 6,000 years old isn’t just bad science,
It’s bad theology, dressed in panic and preaching to Darwin’s ghost.

Ironically, by clinging to a young Earth to “refute” evolution,
many Christians grant Darwin the very premise he demanded:

That Genesis must be geological to be true.

It isn’t.

It’s revelation, and the divine clock doesn’t start with rocks.
It starts with Word and Logos.

Stop playing Darwin and the Dragon’s game.
By outrageously claiming that the Earth is only 6,000 years old,
you make us all look unhinged.

You’ve traded eternal truth for a false choice —
And in doing so, you’ve let the serpent define the terms.

And by allowing that,
you’ve helped drive millions away from Christ —
people who never even stopped to hear the Gospel,
because they saw a Church shouting nonsense about the Earth being younger than a bristlecone pine.

You didn’t defend the truth.
You were manipulated by the Dragon to discredit it and turn people away from it.

 

[Wick Stick]

I have a better question: Who cares?

It's really a moot point.

I agree to a point... the age of the earth is not important.

However, there's a problem that has arisen because science and religion disagree so drastically. The church is viewed from without as caring more about tradition than truth. And if the church doesn't have the truth...

 

[Lambano]

And we are off to the races . . . .

Pax vobiscum.

Thank you, Bob. I had been looking for that piece on iTunes, but I didn't know the name.

 

[Wick Stick]

And Logos didn’t erupt into flesh until roughly 7,000 years ago, in the Garden of Eden.

The archaeological record for intelligent humans goes back at least 12,000 years.

What do you do with the stuff we've dug up that's older than 7,000? Things like Gobekli Tepe show that the builders possessed human intelligence well before the 7,000 year mark.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

What do you do with the stuff we've dug up that's older than 7,000?

Yeah so called carbon dating is not settled science you know.

Just because some scientists say things are true does not mean they are.

 

[Wick Stick]

Yeah so called carbon dating is not settled science you know.

Just because some scientists say things are true does not mean they are.

Carbon dating isn't the end-all be-all. It's a good bit of science, that has unfortunately been frequently mis-used.

But, the record of human civilization in northeast Turkey and Armenia is a continuous unbroken record stretching back much further than 7000 years.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Some people care a great deal, it would seem. And when atheists are using this issue to pour scorn on Christianity, we'd better get our facts right, and not make claims that don't stand up to scrutiny even from a Biblical point of view.

Well the young earth biblical stance does hold up to scrutiny except from the most ardent evolutionists. But whether or not they accept it or even consider it scientific is irrelevant.

Why are we willing to accept the word of men who were not there, use methods that cannot be tested to validate their dating, and reject the Words of God who was there and made all those things?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

But, the record of human civilization in northeast Turkey and Armenia is a continuous unbroken record stretching back much further than 7000 years.

No, their incorrect records may date back further, but they do not. Same with chinese records dating back supposedly 10,000 years. When fully scrutinized, they are scaled way way back.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Thanks for posting this comment.

Help me understand why you reject cosmology and geology, which are based on physics, but accept materials science, engineering, and chemistry, which are also based on physics. Modern medicine applies knowledge of radiology, as do geology and archeology.

Peace.

I do not rejejct cosmology and geology. I reject the dating methods they use to establish these massively old dated.

It has been empirically proven that radiometric dates can be altered, that the dating requires several untestable and unprovable assumptions.

They have tested 1 1/2 century old rocks formed from a volcanic eruption (magma resets the radioactive clock to zero or near zero) and it dated out to millions of years old!

Physics is not absolute! As has been discovered recently with quantum physics.

Also dating the universe requires massive untestable assumptions.

 

[Bob]

Thank you for your post.

So, your position is that because the Bible, and the Bible alone, contains the sole truth about the past, all other dating methods—radiology, ice cores, sedimentary rocks, archeology, . . . , must be flawed. That is quite astonishing, given the God did not intend the Bible as a scientific text.

Genesis begins by revealing that God, and only God, is the creator of the universe, and that He is outside of space and time. In the Bible, God lays out His expectations for people, along with His promises for obedience. He has been completely trustworthy in that regard.

But God never gives us scientific information—neither facts nor theories. Medicine, engineering, . . . have all advanced over the centuries because of human investigations. God helps us crucially to correlate facts and inspires theories, but the investigations we must painstakingly carry out. To assert the Bible as science Is contrary to the character of God.

Note: all modern radiology depends on our knowledge of quantum physics. Quantum theory puts limits on precision at the atomic and nuclear levels. It does not throw doubt into applications: otherwise, we would not have working computers, or lasers, or medical radiation techniques.

Peace.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Thank you for your post.

So, your position is that because the Bible, and the Bible alone, contains the sole truth about the past, all other dating methods—radiology, ice cores, sedimentary rocks, archeology, . . . , must be flawed. That is quite astonishing, given the God did not intend the Bible as a scientific text.

Genesis begins by revealing that God, and only God, is the creator of the universe, and that He is outside of space and time. In the Bible, God lays out His expectations for people, along with His promises for obedience. He has been completely trustworthy in that regard.

But God never gives us scientific information—neither facts nor theories. Medicine, engineering, . . . have all advanced over the centuries because of human investigations. God helps us crucially to correlate facts and inspires theories, but the investigations we must painstakingly carry out. To assert the Bible as science Is contrary to the character of God.

Note: all modern radiology depends on our knowledge of quantum physics. Quantum theory puts limits on precision at the atomic and nuclear levels. It does not throw doubt into applications: otherwise, we would not have working computers, or lasers, or medical radiation techniques.

Peace.

You are correct in saying that teh bible is not a science text book. However, when it speaks of things science explores, it is 100% accurate. It does speak of medicines and therapies, and astronomy and geology. Even engineering and many other disciplines.

It is not a history text, but when speaking of history it is 100% accurate.

Remember radioactive decay was postulated and accepted as fact long before quantum physics also validated the decay methods.

And I reject the so called "scientific dating methods" not on the bible alone but on empirical, verifiable repeatable testing which have shown them to be flawed. Here is one example of how flawed those long age dating methods are:

Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

Also to give you the untestable things that science ignores and the assumptions they make.

1. That a sample began with 100% parent material and 0% daughter material.
2. that the sample is a closed system and no parent or daughter element can be added or deleted.
3. That radio decay is constant and cannot be altered.

All these assumptions have been through testing and empirical evidence shown to be horrendously false.

Example: When a rock becomes molten through melting and becoming magma, the radio clock is reset as the "rock" has been completely changed.

Rocks from a lava field with known dates of 100-125 years old were tested and the results were given as millions of years.

This is just in the field of geology and physics. Evolutionary biology is even loaded with far more errors and lies and genetically and medically false assumptions.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Genesis begins by revealing that God, and only God, is the creator of the universe, and that He is outside of space and time. In the Bible, God lays out His expectations for people, along with His promises for obedience. He has been completely trustworthy in that regard.

But if you reject how He created (in six days 6-10K years ago) why do you accept that He created! It seems you want the bible to be a buffet where you pick and choose what to believe based on what those outside of the Bible conclude.

 

[Wick Stick]

But if you reject how He created (in six days 6-10K years ago) why do you accept that He created! It seems you want the bible to be a buffet where you pick and choose what to believe based on what those outside of the Bible conclude.

I struggled with this.

Ultimately, I did some studies that gave me a better understanding of the text. Comparing it to the OTHER creation story in the Bible was helpful. It's in Job, chapters 38-42. I also compared it to other creation stories from around the same period.

Long story short... the point of Genesis 1 is that God-is-the-Creator, but the timeframes there are not important to that fact. The more important theological point is that God-brought-order-to-chaos. He is a God of order.

That idea doesn't clash with science. Actually, science is pretty interested in the question of how-does-order-arise-out-of-chaos? That doesn't seem to happen naturally. Nature generally goes the other way - entropy tends to create chaos-out-of-order.

My $0.02

 

[Bob]

But if you reject how He created (in six days 6-10K years ago) why do you accept that He created! It seems you want the bible to be a buffet where you pick and choose what to believe based on what those outside of the Bible conclude.

It is astonishing that you think the only reason a person might believe in God is by reading it in the Bible.

God has independently revealed Himself to many.

Atheists have come to know Him (e.g., C. S. Lewis)

Scientists have come to believe after seeing all of the evidence for intelligent design. Etc., etc.

It is time to put this discussion to rest.

Peace.

 

[Jericho]

Any half-decent modern genealogy (such as the royal family of England) will contain every generation, from beginning to end; any omissions would be considered a serious fault. But ancient genealogies had a different function: their main purpose was to define a person’s tribe or clan. For example, the Messiah had to be a son/descendant of King David; but as long as the chain could be traced back to the correct ancestor, there was no need to include every single link. This is implied by the relative elasticity of the Hebrew words for ‘father’ and ‘son’, which can also mean ‘grandfather’ and ‘grandson’ - or even ’distant ancestor’ and ‘remote descendant’! And so Matthew, wanting to make his genealogy of Jesus mathematically “perfect” by having the number of generations an exact multiple of seven, has no hesitation in omitting three names (Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah) between Jehoram and Uzziah (Matthew 1:1-17). And he doesn’t need to apologise for doing so, or even mention it, because it was accepted practice!

When I first heard that theory, I was dismissive of it. But upon further reflection, I think it could be plausible that humanity is older than 6 thousand years, but not by much. Certainly not the hundreds of thousands of years that science (and their flawed acceptance of evolution) thinks we are. If you look at recorded history, the bulk of it is from the last two thousand years. Once you go beyond 4,000 years, it gets very sparse. The oldest known piece of recorded history is around 5,400 to 5,000 years old, which is around the time the wheel was invented. I seriously doubt it took humanity hundreds of thousands of years to invent the wheel. So, I tend to lean toward a young age for humanity. However, that is independent from the age of the earth, which I believe is much, much older.

 

[Wick Stick]

When I first heard that theory, I was dismissive of it. But upon further reflection, I think it could be plausible that humanity is older than 6 thousand years, but not by much. Certainly not the hundreds of thousands of years that science (and their flawed acceptance of evolution) thinks we are. If you look at recorded history, the bulk of it is from the last two thousand years. Once you go beyond 4,000 years, it gets very sparse.

History as a genre of literature wasn't invented til the 7th century BC. Anything earlier that 800BC belongs to some other genre, although some historical details can be gleaned from things like stelae commemorating battles, records of alliances/marriages, and recorded prophecies.

Writing goes back to 4000BC, but the earliest writings are mostly financial documents - bills of sale for transactions like 'Nimrod bought 9 pigs for 20 pieces of silver.'

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I struggled with this.

Ultimately, I did some studies that gave me a better understanding of the text. Comparing it to the OTHER creation story in the Bible was helpful. It's in Job, chapters 38-42. I also compared it to other creation stories from around the same period.

Long story short... the point of Genesis 1 is that God-is-the-Creator, but the timeframes there are not important to that fact. The more important theological point is that God-brought-order-to-chaos. He is a God of order.

That idea doesn't clash with science. Actually, science is pretty interested in the question of how-does-order-arise-out-of-chaos? That doesn't seem to happen naturally. Nature generally goes the other way - entropy tends to create chaos-out-of-order.

My $0.02

I think you are missing many points of Genesis 1. It is the fact that God created, but He made a point in inspiring the order in which He created and in repeati9ng that He did it in 6 days.

Genealogies are critical. If we believe that God inspired the Scriptures and that the genealogy of Jesus is fraught with error, then we believe god inspired error. Remember one genealogy of Jesus goes back to Adam! The Israelites were also very punctilious in writing family trees and ages etc.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

It is astonishing that you think the only reason a person might believe in God is by reading it in the Bible.

God has independently revealed Himself to many.

Atheists have come to know Him (e.g., C. S. Lewis)

Scientists have come to believe after seeing all of the evidence for intelligent design. Etc., etc.

It is time to put this discussion to rest.

Peace.

No, I said true science canonly conclude that there is a God who had to create. It does not give the details of Jesus and the need to trust in His death and resurrection, but like Psalm 19 says:

19 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

 

[Wick Stick]

I think you are missing many points of Genesis 1. It is the fact that God created, but He made a point in inspiring the order in which He created and in repeati9ng that He did it in 6 days.

I think you are missing some literary context. The sequence of 7 days with repetitive phrases is a poetic form. We know this is true because archaeologists dug up a bunch of other poems from the same period and area that use the same exact poetic structure.

If you'd like to read some, the book Stories from Ancient Canaan (Coogan) contains at least two. It's also just generally an interesting read.

Genealogies are critical. If we believe that God inspired the Scriptures and that the genealogy of Jesus is fraught with error, then we believe god inspired error. Remember one genealogy of Jesus goes back to Adam! The Israelites were also very punctilious in writing family trees and ages etc.

Paul literally tells us to ignore the genealogies... twice. The New Testament spends multiple chapters developing the idea that heredity is NOT determined by genealogy, but by behavior.

If your idea of Biblical inspiration requires you to ignore what the text of the Bible says, is it really serving you well?

 

[Taken]

How old is the Earth?

As old as the Beginning…determined BY God who has no Beginning…

IOW- the Earths AGE, is not information necessary for manKind to know To establish an Infinite Lasting Relationship WITH the Lord God Almighty.

Glory to God,
Taken