There are two theories to the age of the Earth. The "Old Earth" theory is supported by Evolutionists and some Creationists, which states that the Earth is billions of years old. The other is the "Young Earth" theory and is supported by most Creationists whose interpretation of the Biblical text understands that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. The research presented here is to determine which of the two theories are correct, it is not concerned with the theories of evolution or creation.

For the purposes of this research I am not interested in doctrinal teachings of any institution. I am interested in finding the truth. As I have a full time career, family and other research projects in the works, I do not have the time to study this issue in great detail. What I am presenting here is a cursory analysis of the arguments from both sides so that you and I can make at least a semi-educational determination of truth from both sides of the argument.

When reviewing the arguments from each side, the doctrinal bias of each group must be kept in mind as this can greatly influence how one perceives the data and interprets it. If the scientific dating methods are accurate the Young Earth theory that the earth is only 6,000 years old fails. Because of this, strong doctrinal bias will influence their research. On the other hand, if the dating methods are found faulty it will not destroy the Old Earth theory as it simply makes the dating questionable. Therefore, the Old Earth advocate does not have the same high degree of bias influencing his research.

The geologic dating methods of fossils, rocks and layers are given dates from the present time to the hundreds of millions of years or even billions of years. These dates are the foundation to the geological timetable and will be the focus here. The dating methods cannot be used to determine the actual age of the earth, they are only intended to provide approximate dates to geological layers. A rock is like a stopwatch, once it hardens it preserves certain physical characteristics which, according to the scienfific ideology, can be measured. But, when that rock is melted or becomes desolidified and hardens again, the stopwatch is reset.

There are two different types of dating methods, Relative and Chronometric. Relative dating is a comparison of rocks, fossils and geological layers with each other to determine a progression of layering. Chronometric dating is an analysis of records and tests that determine an approximate date of a rock, fossil or layer. There are several different kinds of Relative dating as well as Chronometric dating. A third method of dating is called "Comparative Dating" which is using any or all of the other dating methods together to determine a date of a rock, fossil or layer. In the following pages of this section of the web site we will examine each of these methods from both sides of the debate in order to make some conclusions. Below are some web sites that give much more detail than I will present here on the various geological dating methods for additional research on this subject.

The question being answered here is, Can the ages of the geological record be calculated based on the scientific dating methods applied? There are three possible answers to this question.

Geologists agree that each dating method is open to interpretation and error the consensus is that a comparison of the data can give an approximation of age to rocks and fossils. However, the underlying basis to all geological dating is the evolutionary timetable and tree of life, which can influence how that data is perceived. When working with physical principles such as the decay of atoms, it does not seem likely that errors in the millions of years or hundreds of millions of years is likely.

Because the "Young Earth" advocates have much more to lose if these dating methods are accurate, I have to suspect a fair amount of doctrinal bias on their part. Throughout this research I noticed the following observation which I believe is worth mentioning. On numerous occasions Young Earth advocates have accused the Old Earth advocates of interpreting the geological record according to the doctrine of evolution. But, I have also seen this very same approach from the Young Earth advocate as well. It is common for Young Earth advocates to interpret the geological record according their interpretation of the Bible. The following are two quotes from the web site "Answers in Genesis".

While the Old Earth advocates use the data to support their doctrines the Young Earth Advocates only use the data to show that the Old Earth theory is incorrect. According to many of the Young Earth reports this is sometimes due to the flood which has caused many global changes. But, if they are correct then the data should support the Young Earth theory yet it is never used for this purpose. Interestingly, the Fluorine Analysis Method, similar in methodology as the Radiometric Method is never refuted. This may be due to the fact that the scientific community used the Fluorine Method to prove that the "Piltdown Man" was a fake.

The scientists who have developed and used these methods know of their limitations and take this into consideration when determining geological dates. It is this same type of methodology that has allowed scientists to design the space shuttle and nuclear power plants. Scientific methodology cannot be discarded completely on any grounds. Probably the most compelling evidence I have found is the Paleomagnetism studies of the ocean floor, which chronicles many polar shifts during the changing history of the ocean floor.

The one method of dating that I have found to be questionable is the "Biostratigraphy" (Index fossils). This is discussed in further detail under "Geological Periods".

Based on the evidence it would appear that the geological age is very old (at least millions if not billions of years old) and was not formed within the last 6,000 years.

I want to stress that I am not ascribing to the theory of evolution nor am I condemning the idea of Creation, this is simply a search for the age of the earth based on facts as best as can be reasonably achieved.

Brian C. 9-16-06
Some of the geological dating methods may be faulty and could cause misinterpretaion of the geological record. the imperfection of science is not avalid argument for its rejection as the only way to find facts.

Denton 1-15-06
I have long been troubled by the apparent discrepancy between Biblical writings and the deductions of scientists, as to the age of the earth.

Much of the interpretation expressed below is based on a study by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum of www.ariel.org. The document is Radio Manuscript No. 186 entitled "The Seven Days of Creation: Genesis 1:1-2:3". For brevity, rather than listing all Fruchtenbaum's supporting arguments (which delve into the original Hebrew words), you may want to acquire a copy and read for yourself.

In Genesis 1:1, GOD created the heavens and the earth. This statement does not specify the sequence, and in fact, the actual sequence is specified in the verses that follow it.

According to Ezekiel 28:11-14, the earth already existed as a mineral garden and placed under the domain of Lucifer. Lucifer fell, and, the earth was reduced to a state of voidness and chaos (divine judgement on Lucifer and Lucifer's domain), a state which, according to Isaiah 45:18 did not initially exist.

Notice in all the subsequent verses after Genesis 1:2, that GOD said "Let...", whereas the "let" phrase is conspicuously absent from verse 2. Why? Because the earth already had be created with order, then reduced to chaos. In fact, if this is true, the earth IS the oldest created body in the universe! No wonder the rocks appear to be aged, perhaps they were. But there will be no fossils from the original earth, for, death was not visited upon us until after the fall of Adam, i.e. dinosaurs would have to have existed while man is on earth.

What is not known is how much time (as we would know it), transpired between the time of Lucifer's fall, and the remaking of the earth. This is also problematic, since, before the creation of measurable time events in Genesis, time seems to be irrelevant.

The problem apparently most scientists have with creation is that it violates the physical laws that they observe. It does not fit the big bang, condensation of gases, creation of stars and hence the heavier elements through fusion. If GOD has the power to create physical laws, then physical laws cannot constrain HIM.

Consider the issue of light. In Genesis 1:3, GOD created light. Not until verse 14-17 does GOD create the heavenly lights and place them in the heavens, including the stars. This cannot have taken place in this way, based on modern scientific astrophysical observations. How could there be light without a star to produce it?

Denton

Brian C. 12-08-05
Most creationists don't really know what the bible says. Just because there is about 6,000 years from Adam till today has no bearing on the age of the Earth. Notice a few things. Satan or Lucifer was in the garden of eden with Adam and Eve the only 2 people on Earth. The Bible says that Lucifer was at one time an Arc Angel who was a ruler of beings (not only Angles) on Earth who rebeled against God and led 1/3 of the Angles 144,000 in a revolt against Heaven. He was defeated, and kicked out of Heaven. This has to be before Adam and Eve were in the garden. The Bible also mentions 2 floods that are completely different. With Noah he was righteous and he and his family were saved with the animals in the other all man and animal life on the planet was distroyed because they followed Lucifer. I believe that this shows that we were not Gods first attempt and is why there are fossil records of humanoid creatures in the past with no direct evolutionary connection with us.

Most people don't really read the whole Bible for themselves. They only know about what is preached about which is usually a narrow minded and manipulative view of what is there. Study it for yourselves. You will be suprised how well it fits with the facts of science and evolution. In Genises the order everything was created and placed on the Earth fits with the order of evolution. First the Heavens and the Earth, Then the oceans and land, Then the plants, fish, land animals and birds then Man in that order. Science is nothing more than a way for us to try to understand and describe what God has done.

Jon David Power 9-1-05
Thank you for the information and the work you put in on this. I think it was Moses Mainmonades who said that if there was a difference in what science finds and what scripture says, that means there is a misinterpretation of scripture. This was in about the 11th century I believe. I think that is still accurate. It is my feeling that no where in scripture are we told the earth is only 6,000 years old. However, I do think it makes sense to me that when God placed within a "humanoid being" the Neshama or breat of life i.e. Adam that this event is when the 6,000 year time clock or calendar is really started. It seems that this is about when written history is started (unless one counts cave drawings much earlier as history). I think that is because for the first time the humans had the "spirit of God" or neshama which differentiated them from the rest of animal life that had only the nefesh (animal soul).

Therefore, what I am saying is I do not think a belief in an old earth or universe in any way contradicts what the Bible says, and that it is traditions of man that have misinterpreted scripture as they have done so much in the past. Does that make some sense?

DaKine 7-9-05
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/evolution.html check that out, its a well written piece by a Christian scientist.

Russ 7-7-05
I'm very interested in Norm's comments 4-18-05. Hebrew text. The Bible supports old earth therory?

Matt 6-17-05
How could anybody of any intelligence in todays society believe in creation or a creator of the earth ? It is a load of @!#$ !

Paul Cuff 9-19-05
I am a Christian (Mormon) with a strong and quite literal belief in the Bible. I'm also a scientist. I definately belive in the creation of the Earth by God. I don't yet have a strong opinion about geological dating, though, having doubts about its validity, I've decided to find out the detail. This is how I came across your page.

Definately the greatest room for error in geological dating from radioactive material is the assumptions about the initial amounts of radioactive material (such as parent and daughter elements) in the objects. The halflives of radioactive materials are not in question. I believe this is what you meant when you said, "When working with physical principles such as the decay of atoms, it does not seem likely that errors in the millions of years or hundreds of millions of years is likely... It is this same type of methodology that has allowed scientists to design the space shuttle and nuclear power plants." However, if the initial concentrations of radioactive elements in the objects were off by even a small fraction then the dates could easily be off by millions and even billions of years. There is a lot of speculation in this.

Having said that, I also recognize that if several different and independent dating methods result in consistent dates it would be unlikely that they are all incorrect in the same way. I haven't yet looked into it far enough to know if that is the case. Having a lot of old dates is only slightly interesting. Having a lot of old dates that are mysteriously consistant with each other would be the convincing feature for me.

On a theological note, I agree with the earlier comment that the Fall of Adam occuring somewhere around 6,000BC is supported by the Bible. I don't know the precise meathod God used in creating the Earth, but an older geological history is quite likely. However, I also believe that the Fall of Adam introduced death onto the Earth, which doesn't quite sit well with dinosaurs dying and evolving. I'm still trying to resolve that one, but I'll take my time. There's plenty of time to figure it all out, and there is no need for anyone to panic.

Contact me at paul_cuff@hotmail.com .

Dick 5-23-05
where is the Bibliography for this page to check its vilidity? Editor's Note: On each page I have included all of the websites used in this research.

nick 5-23-05
People who make comments concerning believers of different dating systems need to support their acusations with truth. Calling them "idiots" or the Bible is full of @!#$, what inteligence level are we really dealing with?

Norm 4-18-05
dogma is man-made, and based on english translations of hebrew texts. The hebrew text is very rich in meaning and most christians dont know about this. If they did some research into it, they will find that the bible supports the old earth theory. bias has prevented them from doing so.

Winston
I am pleased with your conclusion. I am partial to old earth origins (having examined both sides of the argument from the biblical perspective). I, moreover, could just not reconcile in my mind so much geological changes occurring in just 6000 years.

Delbert
The bible is full of shit. Six thousand years old? Give me a break.

Ray
Engals was right. Only an idiot would accept creation as the true answer to this problem. The church has had to change it't dogma so many times because of uncontestible evidence to the contrary, it becomes laughable.