How Old Is the Earth?
Bodie Hodge, B.Sc., M.Sc., PEI on May 30, 2007;
last featured May 22, 2024
Featured in The New
Answers Book 2
Biblical Authority Ministries, May 22, 2024
How old is the earth? The question of the age of the earth
has produced heated discussions on internet debate boards, TV, radio, in
classrooms, and in many churches, Christian colleges, and
seminaries. The primary sides are:
- Young-earth
proponents (biblical age of the earth and universe of about 6,000 years)[1]
- Old-earth
proponents (secular age of the earth of about 4.5 billion years and a
universe about 14 billion years old)[2]
The difference is immense! Let’s give a little history of
where these two basic calculations came from and which worldview is more
reasonable when answering the question, "how old is the earth?"
Where Did a Young-earth Worldview Come From?
Simply put, it came from the Bible. Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “The earth is 6,000 years old.” Good thing it doesn’t; otherwise, it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn’t expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake.
God gave us something better. In essence, He gave us a
“birth certificate.” For example, using a personal birth certificate, a person
can calculate how old he is at any point. It is similar with the earth. Genesis
1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis
1:1–5). From there, we can begin to calculate the age of the earth.
Let’s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age
of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days
of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following
the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in
the time from Abraham to today.
Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before
him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years,
using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.[3] Whether Christian or
secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000
years ago).
So, a simple calculation is:
5 days
+ ~2,000 years
+ ~4,000 years
= ~6,000 years
At this point, the first five days are negligible. Quite a
few people have done this calculation using the Masoretic text (which is what
most English translations are based on) and with careful attention to the
biblical details, they have arrived at the same time frame of about 6,000
years, or about 4000 B.C. (including me) Two of the most popular, and perhaps best, are a
recent work by Floyd Jones[4] and
a much earlier book by Archbishop James Ussher[5] (1581–1656).
See Table 1.
Table 1. Jones and Ussher
Name |
Age Tallied |
Reference
and Date |
Archbishop James Ussher |
4004 B.C. |
The Annals of the World, A.D. 1658 |
Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones |
4004 B.C. |
The Chronology of the Old Testament, A.D. 1993 |
The misconception exists that Ussher and Jones were the only
ones to arrive at a date of 4000 B.C.; however, this is not the case at all.
Jones[6] lists
several chronologists who have undertaken the task of calculating the age of
the earth based on the Bible, and their calculations range from 5501 to
3836 B.C. A few are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Chronologists’ Calculations According
to Jones
|
Chronologist |
When
Calculated? |
Date
B.C. |
1 |
Julius Africanus |
c. 240 |
5501 |
2 |
George Syncellus |
c. 810 |
5492 |
3 |
John Jackson |
1752 |
5426 |
4 |
Dr William Hales |
c. 1830 |
5411 |
5 |
Eusebius |
c. 330 |
5199 |
6 |
Marianus Scotus |
c. 1070 |
4192 |
7 |
L. Condomanus |
n/a |
4141 |
8 |
Thomas Lydiat |
c. 1600 |
4103 |
9 |
M. Michael Maestlinus |
c. 1600 |
4079 |
10 |
J. Ricciolus |
n/a |
4062 |
11 |
Jacob Salianus |
c. 1600 |
4053 |
12 |
H. Spondanus |
c. 1600 |
4051 |
13 |
Martin Anstey |
1913 |
4042 |
14 |
W. Lange |
n/a |
4041 |
15 |
E. Reinholt |
n/a |
4021 |
16 |
J. Cappellus |
c. 1600 |
4005 |
17 |
E. Greswell |
1830 |
4004 |
18 |
E. Faulstich |
1986 |
4001 |
19 |
D. Petavius |
c. 1627 |
3983 |
20 |
Frank Klassen |
1975 |
3975 |
21 |
Becke |
n/a |
3974 |
22 |
Krentzeim |
n/a |
3971 |
23 |
W. Dolen |
2003 |
3971 |
24 |
E. Reusnerus |
n/a |
3970 |
25 |
J. Claverius |
n/a |
3968 |
26 |
C. Longomontanus |
c. 1600 |
3966 |
27 |
P. Melanchthon |
c. 1550 |
3964 |
28 |
J. Haynlinus |
n/a |
3963 |
29 |
A. Salmeron |
d. 1585 |
3958 |
30 |
J. Scaliger |
d. 1609 |
3949 |
31 |
M. Beroaldus |
c. 1575 |
3927 |
32 |
A. Helwigius |
c. 1630 |
3836 |
As you will likely note from Table 2, the dates are
not all 4004 B.C. There are several reasons chronologists have different dates,[7] but
two primary reasons:
- Some
used the Septuagint
or another early translation instead of the Hebrew Masoretic text. The
Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, done about
250 B.C. by about 70 Jewish scholars (hence it is often cited as the LXX,
which is the Roman numeral for 70). It is good in most places, but appears
to have a number of inaccuracies. For example, one relates to the Genesis
chronologies where the LXX indicates that Methuselah would have lived past
the Flood, without being on the ark!
- Several
points in the biblical time-line are not straightforward to calculate.
They require very careful study of more than one passage. These include
exactly how much time the Israelites were in Egypt and what Terah’s age
was when Abraham was born. (See Jones’s and Ussher’s books for a detailed
discussion of these difficulties.)
The first four in Table 2 (bolded) are calculated
from the Septuagint, which gives ages for the patriarchs’ firstborn much higher
than the Masoretic text or the Samarian Pentateuch (a version of the Old
Testament from the Jews in Samaria just before Christ). Because of this, the
Septuagint adds in extra time. Though the Samarian and Masoretic texts are much
closer, they still have a few differences. See Table 3.[8]
Using data from Table 2 (excluding the Septuagint
calculations and including Jones and Ussher), the average date of
the creation of the earth is 4045 B.C. This still yields an average
of about 6,000 years for the age of the earth.
Table 3. Septuagint, Masoretic, and Samarian
Early Patriarchal Ages at the Birth of the Following Son
Name |
Masoretic |
Samarian
Pentateuch |
Septuagint |
Adam |
130 |
130 |
230 |
Seth |
105 |
105 |
205 |
Enosh |
90 |
90 |
190 |
Cainan |
70 |
70 |
170 |
Mahalaleel |
65 |
65 |
165 |
Jared |
162 |
62 |
162 |
Enoch |
65 |
65 |
165 |
Methuselah |
187 |
67 |
167 |
Lamech |
182 |
53 |
188 |
Noah |
500 |
500 |
500 |
Extra-biblical Calculations for the Age of the Earth
Cultures throughout the world have kept track of history as
well. From a biblical perspective, we would expect the dates given
for creation of the earth to align more closely to the biblical date
than billions of years.
This is expected since everyone was descended from Noah and
scattered from the Tower of Babel. Another expectation is that there should be
some discrepancies about the age of the earth among people as they scattered
throughout the world, taking their uninspired records or oral history to
different parts of the globe.
Under the entry “creation,” Young’s Analytical
Concordance of the Bible[9] lists
William Hales’s accumulation of dates of creation from many cultures,
and in most cases Hales says which authority gave the date. See Table 4.
Historian Bill Cooper’s research in After the Flood provides
intriguing dates from several ancient cultures.[10] The
first is that of the Anglo-Saxons, whose history has 5,200 years
from creation to Christ, according to the Laud and Parker Chronicles.
Cooper’s research also indicated that Nennius’s record of the ancient British
history has 5,228 years from creation to Christ. The Irish chronology
has a date of about 4000 B.C. for creation, which is surprisingly close to
Ussher and Jones! Even the Mayans had a date for the Flood of 3113 B.C.
This meticulous work of many historians should not be
ignored. Their dates of only thousands of years are good support for the
biblical date of about 6,000 years, but not for billions of years.
Table 4. Selected Dates for the Age of the Earth
by Various Cultures
Culture |
Age,
B.C. |
Authority
listed by Hales |
Spain by Alfonso X |
6984 |
Muller |
Spain by Alfonso X |
6484 |
Strauchius |
India |
6204 |
Gentil |
India |
6174 |
Arab records |
Babylon |
6158 |
Bailly |
Chinese |
6157 |
Bailly |
Greece by Diogenes Laertius |
6138 |
Playfair |
Egypt |
6081 |
Bailly |
Persia |
5507 |
Bailly |
Israel/Judea by Josephus |
5555 |
Playfair |
Israel/Judea by Josephus |
5481 |
Jackson |
Israel/Judea by Josephus |
5402 |
Hales |
Israel/Judea by Josephus |
4698 |
University history |
India |
5369 |
Megasthenes |
Babylon (Talmud) |
5344 |
Petrus Alliacens |
Vatican (Catholic using the Septuagint) |
5270 |
N/A |
Samaria |
4427 |
Scaliger |
German, Holy Roman Empire by Johannes Kepler* |
3993 |
Playfair |
German, reformer by Martin Luther* |
3961 |
N/A |
Israel/Judea by computation |
3760 |
Strauchius |
Israel/Judea by Rabbi Lipman* |
3616 |
University history |
* Luther, Kepler, Lipman, and the Jewish computation likely
used biblical texts to determine the date.
The Origin of the Old-earth Worldview
Prior to the 1700s, few believed in an old earth. The approximate 6,000-year age for the earth was challenged only rather recently, beginning in the late 18th century. 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 75,000 years old. Pièrre LaPlace imagined an indefinite but very long history. And Jean Lamarck also proposed long ages.[11]
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. Hutton said he could see no geological evidence
of a beginning of the earth; and building on Hutton’s thinking, Lyell advocated
“millions of years.”
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:
“The past history of our globe must
be explained by what can be seen to be happening now….No powers are to be
employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except
those of which we know the principle.”[12]
This viewpoint is called naturalistic uniformitarianism, and
it excludes any major catastrophes such as Noah’s flood. 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 1840, 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 1899, 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 100 million years in 1862).[13] With
the development of radiometric dating in the early 20th century, the age of the
earth expanded radically. In 1913, Arthur Holmes’s book, The Age of the
Earth, gave an age of 1.6 billion years.[14] Since
then, the supposed age of the earth has expanded to its present estimate of
about 4.5 billion years (and about 14 billion years for the universe).
Table 5. Summary of the Old-earth Proponents for
Long Ages
Who? |
Age
of the Earth |
When
Was This? |
Comte de Buffon |
78 thousand years old |
1779 |
Abraham Werner |
1 million years |
1786 |
James Hutton |
Perhaps eternal, long ages |
1795 |
Pièrre LaPlace |
Long ages |
1796 |
Jean Lamarck |
Long ages |
1809 |
William Smith |
Long ages |
1835 |
Georges Cuvier |
Long ages |
1812 |
Charles Lyell |
Millions of years |
1830–1833 |
Lord Kelvin |
20–100 million years |
1862–1899 |
Arthur Holmes |
1.6 billion years |
1913 |
Clair Patterson |
4.5 billion years |
1956 |
But there is growing scientific evidence that radiometric dating methods are completely unreliable.[15]
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. It confirms that the Bible’s history is giving us the
true age of the creation.
Today, secular geologists will allow some catastrophic
events into their thinking as an explanation for what they see in the rocks.
But uniformitarian thinking is still widespread, and secular geologists will
seemingly never entertain the idea of the global, catastrophic flood of Noah’s
day.
The age of the earth debate ultimately comes down to this
foundational question: Are we trusting man’s imperfect and changing ideas and
assumptions about the past? Or are we trusting God’s perfectly accurate
eyewitness account of the past, including the creation of the world,
Noah’s global flood, and the age of the earth?
Other Uniformitarian Methods for Dating the Age of the Earth
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:
- Initial
amounts?
- Was
any parent amount added?
- Was
any daughter amount added?
- Was
any parent amount removed?
- Was
any daughter amount removed?
- Has
the rate of decay changed?
If the assumptions are truly accurate, then uniformitarian
dates should agree with radiometric dating across the board for the same event.
However, radiometric dates often disagree with one another and with dates
obtained from other uniformitarian dating methods for the age of the earth,
such as the influx of salts into the ocean, the rate of decay of the earth’s
magnetic field, and the growth rate of human population.[16]
The late Dr. Henry Morris compiled a list of 68
uniformitarian estimates for the age of the earth by Christian and secular
sources.[17] The
current accepted age of the earth is about 4.54 billion years based on
radiometric dating of a group of meteorites,[18] so
keep this in mind when viewing Table 6.
Table 6. Uniformitarian Estimates Other than
Radiometric Dating Estimates for Earth’s Age Compiled by Morris
|
0 – 10,000
years |
>10,000
– 100,000 years |
>100,000
– 1 million years |
>1
million – 500 million years |
>500
million – 4 billion years |
>4
billion – 5 billion years |
Number of uniformitarian methods* |
23 |
10 |
11 |
23 |
0 |
0 |
* When a range of ages is given, the maximum age was used to
be generous to the evolutionists. In one case, the date was uncertain so it was
not used in this tally, so the total estimates used were 67. A few on the list
had reference to Saturn, the sun, etc., but since biblically the earth is older
than these, dates related to them were used.
As you can see from Table 6, uniformitarian maximum
ages for the earth obtained from other methods are nowhere near the 4.5 billion
years estimated by radiometric dating; of the other methods, only two
calculated dates were as much as 500 million years.
The results from some radiometric dating methods completely
undermine those from the other radiometric methods. One such example is
carbon-14 (14C) dating. As long as an organism is alive, it takes
in 14C and 12C from the atmosphere; however,
when it dies, the carbon intake stops. Since 14C is radioactive
(decays into 14N), the amount of 14C in a dead
organism gets less and less over time. Carbon-14 dates are determined from the
measured ratio of radioactive carbon-14 to normal carbon-12 (14C/12C).
Used on samples that were once alive, such as wood or bone, the measured 14C/12C
ratio is compared with the ratio in living things today.
Now, 14C has a derived half-life of 5,730
years, so the 14C in organic material supposedly 100,000 years
old should all essentially have decayed into nitrogen.[19] Some
things, such as wood trapped in lava flows, said to be millions of years old by
other radiometric dating methods, still have 14C in them.[20] If
the items were really millions of years old, then they shouldn’t have any
traces of 14C.
Coal and diamonds, which are found in or sandwiched between
rock layers allegedly millions of years old, have been shown to have 14C
ages of only tens of thousands of years.[21] So
which date, if any, is correct? The diamonds or coal can’t be millions of years
old if they have any traces of 14C still in them. 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. Dr. Andrew Snelling, a geologist, points out several of these problems
with potassium-argon, as seen in Table 7.[22]
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?
If the methods don’t work on rocks of known age, it is most
unreasonable to trust that they work on rocks of unknown age. It is far more
rational to trust the Word of the God who 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.
Table 7. Potassium-argon (K-Ar) Dates in Error
Volcanic
eruption |
When
the rock formed |
Date
by (K-Ar) radiometric dating |
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily |
122 B.C. |
170,000–330,000 years old |
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily |
A.D. 1972 |
210,000–490,000 years old |
Mount St. Helens, Washington |
A.D. 1986 |
Up to 2.8 million years old |
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii |
A.D. 1800–1801 |
1.32–1.76 million years old |
Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand |
A.D. 1954 |
Up to 3.5 million years old |
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii |
A.D. 1959 |
1.7–15.3 million years old |
Conclusion: How Old Is The Earth?
When we start our thinking with God’s Word, we see that the world is about 6,000 years old. When we rely on man’s fallible (and often demonstrably false) dating methods, we can get a confusing range of ages from a few thousand to billions of years, though the vast majority of methods do not give dates even close to billions.
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.
The age of the earth ultimately comes down to a matter of
trust—it’s a worldview issue. Will you trust what an
all-knowing God says on the subject, or will you trust imperfect
man’s assumptions and imaginations about the past that regularly are changing?
Thus says the Lord: “Heaven is My throne, and earth
is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the
place of My rest? For all those things My hand has made, and all those things
exist,” says the Lord. “But on this one will I look: On him who is poor
and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word” (Isaiah
66:1–2).
[1] Not
all young-earth creationists agree on this age. Some believe that there may be
small gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 and put the maximum age
of the earth at about 10,000–12,000 years. However, see chapter 5, “Are
There Gaps in the Genesis Genealogies?” and Bodie Hodge, About 6,000 Years
or 10,000 Years—Does It Matter?, Biblical Authority Ministries, April 9, 2024, https://www.biblicalauthorityministries.org/2024/04/6000-or-10000.html.
[2] Some
of these old-earth proponents accept molecules-to-man biological evolution and
so are called theistic evolutionists. Others reject neo-Darwinian evolution but
accept the evolutionary timescale for stellar and geological evolution, and
hence agree with the evolutionary order of events in history.
[3] Russell
Grigg, “Meeting the Ancestors,” Creation, March 2003, pp. 13–15;
See also, Bodie Hodge, Ancient Patriarchs, Answers in Genesis, January 20,
2009, https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/ancient-patriarchs-in-genesis/.
[4] Floyd
Nolan Jones, Chronology of the Old Testament (Green Forest,
AR: Master Books, 2005).
[5] James
Ussher, The Annals of the World, transl. Larry and Marion Pierce
(Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003).
[6] Jones, Chronology
of the Old Testament, p. 26.
[7] Others
would include gaps in the chronology based on the presences of an extra Cainan
in Luke
3:36. But there are good reasons this should be left out. See chapters
5, “Are
There Gaps in the Genesis Genealogies?” and 27, “Isn’t
the Bible Full of Contradictions?”
[8] Jonathan
Sarfati, “Biblical Chronogenealogies,” TJ 17, no. 3
(2003):14–18.
[9] Robert
Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1996), referring to William Hales, A New Analysis of
Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy, vol. 1 (1830), p. 210.
[10] Bill
Cooper, After the Flood (UK: New Wine Press, 1995), p.
122–129.
[11] Terry
Mortenson, “The Origin of Old-earth Geology and its Ramifications for Life in
the 21st Century,” TJ 18, no. 1 (2004): 22–26, online at www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i1/oldearth.asp.
[12] James
Hutton, Theory of the Earth (Trans. of Roy. Soc. of Edinburgh,
1785); quoted in A. Holmes, Principles of Physical Geology (UK:
Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1965), p. 43–44.
[13] Mark
McCartney, “William Thompson: King of Victorian Physics,” Physics World,
December 2002, physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/16484.
[14] Terry
Mortenson, “The History of the Development of the Geological Column,” in The
Geologic Column, eds. Michael Oard and John Reed (Chino Valley, AZ:
Creation Research Society, 2006) https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/the-history-of-the-development-of-the-geological-column/.
[15] For
articles at the layman’s level, see Radiometric
Dating; For a technical discussion, see Larry Vardiman, Andrew
Snelling, and Eugene Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the
Earth, vol. 1 and 2 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research; Chino
Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society, 2000 and 2005). See also “Half-Life
Heresy,” New Scientist, October, 21 2006, pp. 36–39, abstract
online at www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19225741.100-halflife-heresy-acceleratingradioactive-decay.html.
[16] Russell
Humphrey, “Evidence for a Young World,” Impact, June 2005, online
at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp.
[17] Henry
M. Morris, The New Defender’s Study Bible (Nashville, TN:
World Publishing, 2006), p. 2076–2079.
[18] C.C.
Patterson, “Age of Meteorites and the Age of the Earth,” Geochemica et
Cosmochemica Acta, 10 (1956): 230–237.
[19] This
does not mean that a 14C date of 50,000 or 100,000 would be entirely
trustworthy. I am only using this to highlight the mistaken assumptions behind
uniformitarian dating methods.
[20] Andrew
Snelling, “Conflicting ‘Ages’ of Tertiary Basalt and Contained Fossilized Wood,
Crinum, Central Queensland Australia,” Technical Journal 14,
no. 2 (2005): p. 99–122.
[21] John
Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,”
in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth
Creationist Research Initiative, ed. Vardiman et al. (Santee, CA: Institute
for Creation Research; Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society, 2005), p.
587–630.
[22] Andrew
Snelling, “Excess Argon: The ‘Achilles’ Heel’ of Potassium-Argon and
Argon-Argon Dating of Volcanic Rocks,” Impact, January 1999, online at
www.icr.org/article/436.