Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Is The Earth YOUNG or OLD? Here’s Why It Matters…

This one is a bit off the grid, but I think you’re going to find it FASCINATING!

I did.

It might also ruffle some feathers, and I’m ok with that.

I have never ran this website based on popular opinion, or whether I think people will like or not like a story.

I run this website based on two guiding principles:  (1) we print the TRUTH the MSM wants covered up, and (2) I print whatever I think will be glorifying and edifying to Jesus Christ.

So there you go.

You want to know our Editorial Standards here?

Those two are it.

We print TRUTH (that’s standard #1) and we take great pride in making sure our reporting is accurate and well researched.

And #2 is a close corollary — which I can sum up with this: “All truth is God’s truth or it’s not true.”

Yeah, go back and read that again and let it soak in.

I have a few phrases that are like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

One is overusing the word “Bombshell.”

Another is “Claps Back”.

The third is “Breaks His Silence”.

The fourth is “Dunks On”.

Those first four are mostly related to journalism and writing headlines for articles.

I hate when those phrases are used because, quite frankly, I think they’re just LAME.

But the fifth phrase that really bugs me is “My truth.”

As in, “I’m just living MY truth.”

Have you ever heard anyone say that?

I’m sorry but that’s one of the most ignorant things you can say.

Something is either TRUE or it’s not.

It’s an objective standard.

The sky is blue whether you agree with it or not (unless it’s filled with Chemtrails and then that’s a different color)…

Water is wet, whether you believe it or not.

There’s not YOUR truth where water is not wet, and MY truth where water is wet.

No, it’s an objective standard.

Anyway, let me bring this full circle and back to the title of this article, which is How Old Is The Earth?

Which may seem like a very random and not-so-important question, but if that’s what you’re thinking then I just challenge you to watch this video.

I don’t know how or why this popped up in my YouTube feed, but it did and I’m so glad I watched it.

It’s absolutely fascinating!

I can’t possibly summarize the whole thing for you here, you just need to watch it, but I will point out a couple things that really stood out to me.

The first is that the true scientific evidence (trust the science!) for a YOUNG Earth is overwhelming when you actually dig into it!

Imagine that.

The evidence for an Earth that is Billions of years old is very flaky and relies mostly on “science” that first begins with the assumption that it HAS to be old.


Because without an Old Earth, science cannot explain how everything got here and got here so perfectly.

That’s one thing everyone agrees on.

The Young and Old Earth camps, the science and non-science camps, everyone agrees that if you have a “Young Earth” (about 6,000 years old) then there is simply no way to explain the complexity of all the life we see here WITHOUT there being a Creator.

So if you can’t allow for a Creator to be in the equation, then you have to have an OLD Earth, and so every experiment or proof that claims to show the Earth is Old starts with the beginning assumption that it HAS TO BE old.

So you get a very circular proof.


On a similar note (and I’m just cherry picking random things from this incredible interview) they talk about Carbon Dating.

We’ve all heard of that, right?

Carbon Dating — YAY SCIENCE!

Except….it’s notoriously unreliable…and founded, again, mostly on assumptions that we need to end up with very old things.

One example: scientists applied carbon dating and other “age dating scientific tests” to molten lava rocks which were formed by recent volcanoes.

Why do that?

Easy, because you start with a “rock” that you know when it was made.

They took a volcanic explosion from the 1980s, grabbed some of the molten lava rocks that were made from that explosion (made in 1980s) and they ran them through the scientific tests that allegedly tell us how old things are.

Want to guess what the results said?

Hundreds of thousands of years old!

How hilarious!

Off by many thousands of a percent.

The “experiment” failed miserably, and it was repeated many times from many different volcanic rock explosions all over the world.

Every time the same results.

Sometimes hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes even into the millions.

But never accurately hitting the age we know they actually are.


Then there’s the spiritual aspect.

This is not a core salvation issue — Christians can land on both sides of this debate and still be “saved” according to the Bible.

But….I never knew actually how deeply tied it is into your faith.

These guys explain it way better than I can, but basically here’s the quick summary:  if the Earth is OLD, then you must have many millions of years of “evolution” — that’s the theory they need.

But to get that, you need many generations of all things in creation living and dying.


So the theory goes….

The micro-organisms in the original watery goo start to react and evolve and then come bigger organisms, then bugs and fish, then mammals, then birds, then eventually humans “evolve” from all of that stuff, somehow.

But set aside the whole “Evolution” part that people debate about.

Forget about that for a second….that’s not what we’re talking about here.

We’re talking about all the generations of things living and dying that you MUST have to get that system.

But you’ve got a big problem with that if you read your Bible.

Romans 8 tells us that God created everything full of hope, but later it was subjected into bondage:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

Very simply put, God created things and they were GOOD — Genesis 1-2.

There was no death at that time.

It was only after sin entered the world through Adam and Eve (Genesis 3) that you suddenly have the entire creation subjected to the curse of death.



So forgetting entirely about Evolution, the Bible doesn’t give you the option for an Earth that is millions of years old because then you have to have God creating DEATH.

God didn’t create Death.

Death came from Adam and Eve.

And without millions of years of creatures living and dying, you can’t get Evolution.

My mind was blown!

It’s also a fruit issue.

The more you learn about a Young Earth, the more fruit that seems to come from that.

The more you go down an Old Earth track, there doesn’t ever seem to be any fruit that comes from that direction.

Test it out and see for yourself.

Anyway, I’ve talked enough, now you just need to watch it for yourself.

Please enjoy:

If you want more, here is a SMALL portion of the huge 100-point list published over at

Can science prove the age of the earth?

The widely accepted age of the universe is currently 13.77 billion years and for the solar system (including Earth) it is 4.543 billion years. However, no scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here that strongly suggest that these accepted ages are in serious error. Although age indicators are called ‘clocks’ they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. The starting time of the ‘clock’ has always to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.

There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now. And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all (see below).

Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism. If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.

Examples of young ages listed here are also obtained by applying the same principle of uniformitarianism. Long-age proponents will dismiss this sort of evidence for a young age of the earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases. In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past.

The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all suggest much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning the accepted ages.

Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend.

Many of these indicators for younger ages were discovered when creationist scientists started researching things that were supposed to ‘prove’ long ages. The lesson here is clear: when the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a younger age of the earth. On the other hand, some of the evidences listed here might turn out to be ill-founded with further research and will need to be modified. Such is the nature of science, especially historical science, because we cannot do experiments on past events (see “It’s not science”).

Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events. The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos. See The Universe’s Birth Certificateand Biblical chronogenealogies (technical). In the end we believe that the Bible will stand vindicated and those who deny its testimony will be confounded.

Biological evidence for a young age of the earth

The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells, animal proteins, and even DNA in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65+ million years claimed by the paleontologists.
    1. DNA in ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
    2. Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
    3. The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly harmful mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author in Creation 30(4):45–47, September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.
    4. The data for ‘mitochondrial Eve’ are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
    5. Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
    6. Many fossil bones ‘dated’ at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really?Tubes of marine worms, ‘dated’ at 550 million years old, that are soft and flexible and apparently composed of the original organic compounds hold the record (original paper).
    7. Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen, histones) and DNA are not consistent with their supposed more than 65-million-year age, but make more sense if the remains are thousands of years old (at most).
    1. Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils ‘dated’ at millions of years old, whereas complete racemization would occur in thousands of years.
    2. Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.
    3. Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. Coelacanth, Wollemi pine and various ‘index’ fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example? See The ‘Lazarus effect’: rodent ‘resurrection’!
    4. The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.

Geological evidence for a young age of the earth

Radical folding at Eastern Beach, near Auckland in New Zealand, indicates that the sediments were soft and pliable when folded, inconsistent with a long time for their formation. Such folding can be seen world-wide and is consistent with a young age of the earth.
  1. Scarcity of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See Origins 21(1):51–56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an ‘era’ buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years.
  2. Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the Kaibab Upwarp in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood. See Warped earth (written by a geophysicist).
  3. Polystrate fossils—tree trunks in coal (Araucaria spp. king billy pines, celery top pines, in southern hemisphere coal). There are also polystrate tree trunks in the Yellowstone fossilized forests and Joggins, Nova Scotia and in many other places. Polystrate fossilized lycopod trunks occur in northern hemisphere coal, again indicating rapid burial / formation of the organic material that became coal.
  4. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
  5. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.
  6. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.
  7. Evidence for rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds speaks against the hundreds of millions of years normally claimed for this, including Z-shaped seams that point to a single depositional event producing these layers.
  8. Evidence for rapid petrifaction of wood speaks against the need for long periods of time and is consistent with an age of thousands of years.
  9. Clastic dykes and pipes (intrusion of sediment through overlying sedimentary rock) show that the overlying rock strata were still soft when they formed. This drastically compresses the time scale for the deposition of the penetrated rock strata. See Walker, T., Fluidisation pipes: Evidence of large-scale watery catastrophe, J. Creation (TJ) 14(3):8–9, 2000.

Read the full list here:

Now if you loved that, we have to “take it up a notch.”

My friend Trey Smith has covered this extensively as well, and all I can say is you’re in for a big treat.

Watch this:

And before I go, I can already see the Comments and I know someone is going to post about the Gap Theory.

I thought this answer was really good from Dr. James Marocco from King’s Hawaiian:

So….what do you think?


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!