Why you should believe in a young earth if you are a Christian, creationist or non-theistic and love and follow the majority of scientific evidence


  • The assumption that the events of the first week required thousands upon thousands of years, strikes directly at the foundation of the fourth commandment…It is infidelity in its most insidious and hence most dangerous form; its real character is so disguised that it is held and taught by many who profess to believe the Bible.” Ellen White, Christian Education p. 190
  • If the Bible’s implications that the age of the earth is young are wrong as most secular scientists claim, then the Bible is not infallible and thus not inspired by God.” Robert P. (church elder who became an atheist for years, but is now leaning back towards Christianity)
  • If the earth is old (in contrast to the biblical evidence of a young earth), God is not a God of truth…because Genesis is full of false claims. He is also not merciful or good, because there were millions of years of suffering and death before Adam and Eve…God also cannot be the Christian God.” Dr. Kurt Wise, leading biblical creation science advocate (from the end of “The Age of Things: Does it Matter?” below)
  • “Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists.” Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (reference below)


The Bible does not anywhere make a specific claim about the age of the earth (and if it mentioned the exact age of the earth, it would be wrong the very next year), but it does have some fairly strong inferences about it. So the issue of the age of the earth does not itself determine salvation and does not affect hardly anything else in life either.  If we sincerely put our faith in God which involves following His principles to the best of our knowledge (James 2, 1 John 2:1-6), then we can have the blessings and freedom God promised (John 8:32, 1 Tim. 4:8, Deut. 4:1-8, 28, 30:15-20, etc.)

However, some atheists make mountains out of molehills and have used the issue of the age of the earth to destroy faith in God as truthful and make people think that if inferences in the Bible about the age of the earth aren’t accurate, then people can’t trust God or the Bible on anything else either. Many have been led to reject Christianity because they wrongly thought there was a contradiction between science and the Bible (even though up to 90% of dating methods point to a young earth).

Sharing evidence for a young earth can be very helpful to Christians as well. If we can show that the earth is young, it completely blows all mechanisms of evolution out of the water as being completely incompentent to explain the origins of all life and biological species on planet earth. So for these reasons although it is not a salvation issue, it is a significant issue and helpful to study and understand.


1) The Bible says:

“For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.” Ex. 20:11

So that’s pretty clear that:
A) God made everything in this earth and its atmosphere/skies.
B) He made it all in 6 literal 24 hour days at creation (almost all major Hebrew scholars agree that these are 24 hour literal days**quote to come**) and
C) Sabbath is a memorial to that creation which makes our very lives possible.

2) Then the Bible lists a chronology of ancestors from Adam to Noah (Genesis 5) and later on up to Jesus (Matthew 1). These chronologies are definitely literal as quite a few professors like Bernard White have shown.[1]  If you add up the years of life and consider typical lifespans, basic math strongly implies that the earth is between 6-10,000 years old.

There are a few exegetical/linguistic reasons that could change things by a few centuries or a couple thousand years at most. But Dr. Chris Hardy and Dr. Robert Carter say,

“Accounting for all presently known relevant details and assuming the Babylonian Captivity began in 587 or 586 BC, we can say with confidence that the Bible places limits on the year of creation between 5665 and 3822 BC.”
The biblical minimum and maximum age of the earth.


The age of the earth itself is trivial and has very little if any effects on human life. But atheists try to falsely claim the Bible is anti-science with claims of an old earth and use of false science and then try to destroy faith. When many people abandon faith, history shows that human rights are degraded/destroyed and civilizations ruined. So for this reason it does matter. Kurt Wise has a Ph.D. from Harvard, but is a fervent creationist. He has a very powerful lecture on the importance of creation and the age of the earth.  He like many theologians and scientists says that Genesis is the foundation of almost every major doctrine in the Bible.

He compares the claims of creation and the earth’s age to the claims of Darwinism and an old earth and shows the implications and shows that if we don’t support creation, we have to throw out Genesis 1-11 (20% of Genesis),  Parts of 23 Psalms must be discarded (15% of Psalms), Parts of 18 OT books must be tossed (45% of OT books)  and parts of 7 NT books (25% of NT books) are wrong and must be rejected. He also shows that it’s not possible to reconcile an old earth/Darwinian claims with the biblical God being good, loving or true and that those who accept an old earth often end up rejecting the flood as well as Christianity (from 32:00 to the end is especially good).

The Age of Things: Does it Matter? – Dr. Kurt Wise (Conf Lecture)

Dr. Kurt Wise points out many contradictions between an old earth and Bible truths in this powerful talk. Here’s just one screenshot.

For these and other reasons, Darwinians and atheists attack the age of the earth a great deal. Here are just a few examples.

“Want proof god doesn’t exist? No problem! THE PROOF IS ALL AROUND YOU. See that rock? That rock was formed in a volcano 500 million years ago. And that Trilobite fossil? 500 million years ago too… Humans evolved from apes somewhere around 6 million years ago. We didn’t come from two white people living in a garden 6000 years ago. That’s just silly.” Danny M

“So you’re thinking of becoming a Young Earth Creationist? If so, you’ll need to deny or modify many academic disciplines, including history and archaeology, atomic physics, cosmology, geology, biology, global warming, dendrochronology, paleontology, bioinformatics and more….So good luck in your new enterprise!” Sean O

Young earth creationism is fractally wrong. Fractally wrong is the sense that every part and component of the worldview is false, all of their beliefs is false, anything they have to say to support young earth creationism is also false, there is nothing correct about YECism at all conceivable level, young earth creationism is wrong at all levels…
Adeleke O, biologist

None of the above claims are true of course. A simple proof is that most of the founders and pioneers of science before modern times were perfectly able to make numerous scientific advances in all the fields above without believing in an earth that is millions of years old. Not just the age of the earth, but all of Darwinism is irrelevant to most of science.

Dr. Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School stated:
“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” (he’s lamenting this fact and calling for other fields of biology to use common descent ideas more).
Quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005.

Dr. Philip Skell (Ph.D. in chemistry from Duke University), Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry at Penn State University, has authored ~180 papers in major peer reviewed journals. He wrote in an article,
“[T]he modern form of Darwin’s theory has been raised to its present high status because it’s said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’ most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas,” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others.

I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”

From my conversations with leading researchers it had became [sic] clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.
Skell, P., Why do we invoke Darwin? The Scientist 16:10.

In stark contrast, creation science has been crucial to the progress of science. Dr. James Hannam (Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge) writes:

“…Christians believe that God created the world and ordained the laws of nature. He is the guarantor of constant and rational laws, such that investigating the world can consequently be a religious duty. It’s easy to forget that, until the 19th century, science had almost no practical applications. A religious imperative to study nature provided almost the only reason to bother doing it. It’s no surprise that so many scientific pioneers were devout men: Johannes Kepler, Sir Isaac Newton, Joseph Priestley, Michael Faraday, Georg Mendel, and James Clerk Maxwell, to name just a few.”

There are only a couple dozen methods pointing to an old earth and they are based on massive assumptions and ignoring catastrophes.**

Even Darwinians like Dr. Allmon are admitting that these a priori assumptions that Hutton and Lyell used have harmed and caused much damage to science.

“As is now increasingly acknowledged, however, Lyell also sold geology some snake oil. He convinced geologists that…all past processes acted at essentially their current rates…This extreme gradualism has led to numerous unfortunate consequences, including the rejection of sudden or catastrophic events in the face of positive evidence for them, for no reason other than that they were not gradual.” Warren D Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution in Ithaca, NY, and Adjunct Associate Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University, “Post Gradualism”,Science, vol. 262, p. 122, October 1, 1993.

***Dr. William Libby, who won a Nobel prize for helping pioneer Carbon 14 dating methods, said this about it.

“Carbon-14 calculations are based on 7 assumptions
1) The balance between Carbon-14 production and decay has always been the same;
2) The rate of Carbon-14 decay has not altered;
3) Organic material tested has not been contaminated by Carbon-14 since its death;
4) Earth’s magnetic field intensity has not changed;
5) There have only been small variations in ocean depths;
6) Ocean temperature changes have only been minor; and
7) Cosmic ray intensity has not changed.

Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact.”  Willard F. Libby, “Radiocarbon Dating”, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p: 8, 10, 19-31


Those who trust God should believe in a young earth. But anyone who is rational and informed about most of the lines of evidence on the topic should also believe in a young earth from the scientific evidence alone, even if they aren’t Christians/creationists and don’t consider evidence from the Bible.  Why? Because as Dr. Sarfati correctly says:

“Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists.” Refuting Evolution-How old is the earth? by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.

A list of 101 of methods that point to a young earth are here (there are others).

Dr. Russell Humphreys says
“There is a little-known irony in the controversy between creationists and evolutionists about the age of the world. The majority of scientists— the evolutionists—rely on a minority of the relevant data. Yet a minority of scientists—the creationists—use the majority of the relevant data.2 Adding to the irony is the public’s wrong impression that it is the other way around. Therefore, many ask: “If the evidence is so strongly for a young earth, why do most scientists believe otherwise?” The answer is simple: Most scientists believe the earth is old because they believe most other scientists believe the earth is old!”

Dr. Marcos Ross, professor at the University of Rhode Island, in the insightful documentary “Evolution’s Achilles Heels” by 15 Ph.Ds. said that the flood drastically messes up the geological clocks:
“The flood wipes away millions of years from the geological record.”

In another talk, he said that the flood resets geology back to creation and lists ~25 on scientific reasons for young earth and gives details about several of them including[2]:  C-14 in ancient fossils, radiohalos in granites, preservation of soft tissue in fossils, no bias in thick vs. thin fossil shell preservation, helium dating of zircons, fewer fossil species than expected in old-Earth scenarios, lack of bioturbation in sedimentary rocks, tight rock folding and sand injections, fossil footprints and tracks found below skeletons, widespread hybridization.

Genesis Conversations 3: Dr. Marcus Ross – (Mostly) Dry Bones – 2023-04-24

This is a good link to 10 of the best scientific reasons for a young earth (and others are in the link above ):

The 10 Best Evidences from Science That Confirm a Young Earth

This is a good graphic that shows how to convert old earth claims into the young earth model that has far more scientific evidence.


Dr. Snelling says that after 90,000 years we shouldn’t see any carbon left in dinosaur bones (or other things). He gave samples of dinosaur bones and all found carbon in dinosaur bones which are supposedly 65 million years old. Not only that, they have found carbon in coal, limestone and diamonds (which are supposed to be 3 billion years old).

In addition, they took samples of coal that had supposed ages from 40-300 million years old. But all had the same levels of carbon, meaning they lived and died at the same time. This fits the flood paradigm of much biological life all over earth dying at the same time.

Dr. Snelling and others have published these things in peer reviewed studies in secular journals or at academic conferences and they have been replicated by other scientists both Darwinian and Creation.  But when Darwinians encounter these facts, they blame it on machine error (impossible) or just dismiss and refuse to wrestle with the facts  because of predetermined a priori fallacious assumptions of Darwinism/methodological naturalism that nothing can be allowed to challenge no matter how good the evidence.

What was unexpectedly found in Dinosaur Bones, Coal and Diamonds? – Dr. Andrew Snelling (esp. ~10:00+)

See also: Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

So in short, young earth creation views are based on the majority of scientific evidence as well as the testimony of God, while old earth claims are based on a priori science denying assumptions, a little flimsy evidence and cherry picking to arrive at predetermined conclusions, in other words, wholly irrational principles.

See also:
Evidence for a Young World

[1] Bernard White. “Revisiting Genesis 5 and 11: a Closer Look at the Chronogenealogies”  Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 53, No. 2, 253-277. 2015.

[2] Genesis Conversations 3: Dr. Marcus Ross – (Mostly) Dry Bones – 2023-04-24