# How old is the world?

Ok, so I was talking to some people at my work. they were telling there is scientific proof that the earth is only 6000 years old. which confused me is that most life I was told it was millions of years. how can there be two different scientific theories on how old the world is?

Relevance
• Anonymous
4 years ago

There is no "scientific proof" that the world is 6000 years old - that is a calculation done by a Catholic bishop in the 1500's.

The Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

• 4 years ago

The world is 4.5 billion years old. I don't see why you didn't look this up. It doesn't matter

• Bill-M
Lv 7
4 years ago

The Earth is 4 to 5 BILLION years old.

The 6000 years comes from RELIGON which is NOT science.

• Tom S
Lv 7
4 years ago

The scientific evidence point s to the Earth being about 4 1/2 to 5 billion years old. The people who say otherwise are ignorant.

• ?
Lv 7
4 years ago

The 6000 year age is NOT Scientific--It was dreamed up by a man who INTERPRETED the BIBLE to suggest that, several hundreds of years ago. WHile most of us are amiable to the bible, it is "against the rules" to use it or some man's interpretation of it in SCIENCE---Which we can only allow Experience, observation and experiment to come up with answers. Otherwise it would not be Science.

The Science game, following the rules, comes up with about 4.5 BILLION years for the age of the Earth. (The Bible really doesn't say anything about the Earth's age anyway) There are places where layered rock and sediment is found and we KNOW how long they took to acuminate (each layer was a year)---and they go WAY past 6000 years---Tens of thousands, actually. And radiation decay readings gives us BILLIONS of years, etc.

• 4 years ago

There CAN'T be two SCIENTIFIC theories that give such a disparate age for the earth.

The key word is "scientific." A scientific theory is a conclusion about some aspect of nature that is derived from the analysis of various lines of evidence. The analysis of evidence comes first and the conclusion subsequently derives from that analysis of the evidence.

The scientific theory that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old is a conclusion derived from several lines of evidence.

In contrast to the scientific method for the age of the earth, the creationist method begins WITH the conclusion that the earth is only 6,000 years old (based on the Bible) and then seeks to find evidence in support of that conclusion.

Since there is no actual evidence in support of that conclusion, the creationist pseudo-scientists are forced to resort to misrepresentation of, and even lie about, the evidence.

So, the creationist claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old is not a true scientific theory, but merely biblical myth-based nonsense.

• 4 years ago

There is no "scientific" proof that the earth is only 6000 years old. In fact, the science shows that it is much older. The young earth idea is totally incompatible with what exists. It is simply not possible to have made the earth features like sediments and river valleys, and all those things (without even getting into formation of rock from sediments) in anything but millions of years. And there are many such lines of evidence for an old earth.

The "true" age of the earth is thought to be 4.55 billion years. This comes from measurement of radioactive isotope decay, from lots and lots of samples from both on earth and from space (meteorites and moon samples have also been measured, dated). But even if one wished to deny those measurements as being "real" or "true", that would only open up the date of formation of the earth, but would not make it so that you could argue factually for a young earth.

The earth is very old, the only discussion is one of how old, how many hundreds of millions of years or more, not if it is hundreds of millions of years old or more.

• CRR
Lv 7
4 years ago

There are many ways to measure the age of the Earth and although some give very old ages many give much younger ages. http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-univers...