Based on the bible how old is the world

Okay, you might need a degree in geology to tell desert sand deposition from silt and to follow the series around the West to account for disconformities, but even a casual, unbiased evaluation will convince you utterly of two things: 1 The canyon was laid down by erosion through ancient sediments, not cut by any flood, and 2 those sediments were laid down over many, many, many millions of years.

And that's just scratching the surface, so to speak. Even the Pope knows the Earth is 4. When you accept it and start studying the data, you'll discover something important. Many of those loudly proclaiming a young Earth these days must unavoidably understand how far their claims are from what the Earth really tells us--but they keep on saying it anyway, and selling books and lecture tickets. I wonder why they would do that? This question originally appeared on Quora. News U. Politics Joe Biden Congress Extremism.

Special Projects Highline. HuffPost Personal Video Horoscopes. Follow Us. Terms Privacy Policy. Part of HuffPost Science. All rights reserved. Nature tells us Ussher was off by six orders of magnitude. The Earth formed a persistent solid surface 4. Life appeared no less than 3. A billion years later, cyanobacteria started producing oxygen as a waste product, and this started precipitating iron dissolved in the oceans into the deposits we now quarry for ore.

We should mention that the use of a numeral to modify "days," in this case "6," is again reserved for a literal day in Hebrew, as is the use of the plural word "days. Suffice it to say that no one could conclude that Scripture specifically places Creation any longer ago than a few thousand years, and to my knowledge no one does. Many do hold to an older position, but not for Scriptural reasons. They are convinced by radioisotope dating, perhaps, or maybe the molecular clock of mutation rates, or some other line of thinking, but not from Scripture.

Scripture teaches a young earth, and the time has come for Christians to stop twisting Scripture to fit the evolutionary and uniformitarian speculations of some scientists about the unobserved past.

We suggest it's time for such Christians to stop calling themselves "Bible-believing" Christians and start using some such name as "world-believing" Christians. Cite this article: John D. Morris, Ph. Skip to main content. More Science. Cherry Orchards, Nutrition, and Providential Phenology.

Notice how fruit phenology seasonal This month the American Academy of Neurology published a medical science study showing that senior women can fight air pollution hazards, including brain More Creation Science Update. Mouse Brains Rewire Themselves.

How do you know when something has been engineered? These opponents of the biblical chronology essentially left God out of the picture. Three of the old-earth advocates included Comte de Buffon, who thought the earth was at least 75, years old. And Jean Lamarck also proposed long ages. However, the idea of millions of years really took hold in geology when men like Abraham Werner, James Hutton, William Smith, Georges Cuvier, and Charles Lyell used their interpretations of geology as the standard, rather than the Bible.

Werner estimated the age of the earth at about one million years. Smith and Cuvier believed untold ages were needed for the formation of rock layers. From these men and others came the consensus view that the geologic layers were laid down slowly over long periods of time based on the rates at which we see them accumulating today.

Hutton said:. Though some, such as Cuvier and Smith, believed in multiple catastrophes separated by long periods of time, the uniformitarian concept became the ruling dogma in geology. Thinking biblically, we can see that the global flood in Genesis 6—8 would wipe away the concept of millions of years, for this Flood would explain massive amounts of fossil layers. Most Christians fail to realize that a global flood could rip up many of the previous rock layers and redeposit them elsewhere, destroying the previous fragile contents.

This would destroy any evidence of alleged millions of years anyway. So the rock layers can theoretically represent the evidence of either millions of years or a global flood, but not both. Sadly, by about , even most of the Church had accepted the dogmatic claims of the secular geologists and rejected the global flood and the biblical age of the earth. After Lyell, in , Lord Kelvin William Thomson calculated the age of the earth, based on the cooling rate of a molten sphere, at a maximum of about 20—40 million years this was revised from his earlier calculation of million years in But there is growing scientific evidence that radiometric dating methods are completely unreliable.

Christians who have felt compelled to accept the millions of years as fact and try to fit them into the Bible need to become aware of this evidence. Today, secular geologists will allow some catastrophic events into their thinking as an explanation for what they see in the rocks. Radiometric dating was the culminating factor that led to the belief in billions of years for earth history. However, radiometric dating methods are not the only uniformitarian methods.

Any radiometric dating model or other uniformitarian dating method can and does have problems, as referenced before. All uniformitarian dating methods require assumptions for extrapolating present-day processes back into the past.

The assumptions related to radiometric dating can be seen in these questions:. If the assumptions are truly accurate, then uniformitarian dates should agree with radiometric dating across the board for the same event. The late Dr. Henry Morris compiled a list of 68 uniformitarian estimates for the age of the earth by Christian and secular sources. Table 6. In one case, the date was uncertain so it was not used in this tally, so the total estimates used were A few on the list had reference to Saturn, the sun, etc.

As you can see from table 6, uniformitarian maximum ages for the earth obtained from other methods are nowhere near the 4. The results from some radiometric dating methods completely undermine those from the other radiometric methods. One such example is carbon 14 C dating. As long as an organism is alive, it takes in 14 C and 12 C from the atmosphere; however, when it dies, the carbon intake stops.

Since 14 C is radioactive decays into 14 N , the amount of 14 C in a dead organism gets less and less over time.

Now, 14 C has a derived half-life of 5, years, so the 14 C in organic material supposedly , years old should all essentially have decayed into nitrogen.

Coal and diamonds, which are found in or sandwiched between rock layers allegedly millions of years old, have been shown to have 14 C ages of only tens of thousands of years. This shows that these dating methods are completely unreliable and indicates that the presumed assumptions in the methods are erroneous. Similar kinds of problems are seen in the case of potassium-argon dating, which has been considered one of the most reliable methods. Andrew Snelling, a geologist, points out several of these problems with potassium-argon, as seen in table 7.

These and other examples raise a critical question. If radiometric dating fails to give an accurate date on something of which we do know the true age, then how can it be trusted to give us the correct age for rocks that had no human observers to record when they formed? It is far more rational to trust the Word of the Godwho created the world, knows its history perfectly, and has revealed sufficient information in the Bible for us to understand that history and the age of the creation.

Cultures around the world give an age of the earth that confirms what the Bible teaches. Radiometric dates, on the other hand, have been shown to be wildly in error. People complain about The New Answers Book. Well, we listened! Many view the original New Answers Book as an essential tool for modern discipleship. Both of these books answer such questions as: Can natural processes explain the origin of life?