Bree Rosa asks: Is Earth 6000 years old or is 4.5 billion more accurate? Is the universe as old as scientists claim or is the Christian community correct about a younger universe? Thanks.

Hi Bree. Thanks for your question.

Before we get into this answer, we'd like to point out that this topic has absolutely nothing to do with salvation (this is not an essential and should not cause division within the body of Christ). This topic has been ever-debated, and both sides carry their fair share of points. So here is BRC's perspective.

As Bible readers, we need to understand the fact that the Bible does not address this issue. Thus, we need to consider what we know scientifically.

First, we can look at the measurement used to measure the distance between our planet and our surrounding galaxies. These distances are measured in light speed (186,000 miles per second). Therefore, it makes logical sense that the age of the universe is measured in billions of years rather than in thousands of years.

Secondly, just as arborists determine the age of trees by counting tree rings, scientists also count the sequential layers in the formation of ice cores in places like Antarctica. The data logged by these researchers, point to an Earth far older than six thousand years old.

Thirdly, and possibly the more convincing argument is star life. Star life depends totally on star mass. A star like our Sun, has enough fuel to burn for approximately 9 billion years. Yet, a star half its size, has fuel to burn approximately 20 billion years. Thus, according to this argument, the universe is presumed to be at least as old as the oldest stars.

Lastly, not only do young creationists ignore such arguments, they also have the need to dismiss events that have already taken place. Take for example, the Supernova 1987A. Before 1987, this Supernova was a star 168,000 light-years away. On February 23, 1987, this star exploded and became a Supernova. However, while scientists witnessed the explosion in 1987, the actual explosion occurred 168,000 years ago, and the light of that event reached us in 1987.

Therefore, if we follow the young creationist view, even though this event was witnessed and well-recorded, it must have never really taken place. Thus, the notion that the universe is not truly old (it only appears to be old), brings far more contradictions than understanding. Hope this helps to clear things up. God bless you.

Comments:

Carrie Hill: You all say that the Bible doesn't address this issue, but are you not aware that when the genealogies of Genesis are counted backward, they add up to the world being 4-6 thousand years old?

BRC Hosts Joey and Chris: Hi Carrie. We are aware that Bishop James Ussher, pushed a chronology that dates the creation of Adam to 4004 B.C. However, he did not seem to catch on to the fact that there are gaps in the genealogies. Since these gaps are present, there is no way to find out how many generations where skipped, while pointing to the key people in the bloodline of Jesus. Also, dating genealogies does not point to the age of the universe nor the earth.

Carrie Hill: I've looked up his chronology, as well as all the other genealogies and I've yet to find "gaps". Can you point them out?

BRC Hosts Joey and Chris: Absolutely Carrie. In comparing scripture to scripture, Luke 3, places Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad. In Genesis 11, Cainan is missing. This can also be seen in Matthew 1:8, where Jehoram is listed as the father or Uzziah. However, three generations are skipped (Ahazaiah, Joash, and Amazaiah). Another example we can find is in Daniel 5:2, where Belshazzar is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar, when in reality he was the son of Nebonidus (the son in law of Nebuchadnezzar).

Carrie Hill: That's the first time I see that. I need to re-read those verses. Thanks.

BRC Hosts Joey and Chris: No problem, Carrie. God bless you.

Jason King: You bring some good points, but what about the unreliability of Radiometric dating? Doesn't this push an early creation?

BRC Hosts Joey and Chris: Hi Jason. The thing is that early creationists often try to discredit operational science, which typically leads to error (at BRC, we do not hold to theoretical science, but we do hold to operational science). Early Creationists question Radiometric Dating on the assumption that the rate of nuclear decay was greater in the past than in the present. However, the nuclear radiation rate needed to agree with a six-thousand-year-old creation would kill all plants, animals, and humans. Also, physicists did not just assume that the rate of decay was consistent. They tested a myriad of things to prove its reliability by subjecting radioactive atoms to extreme temperatures, pressure, and electromagnetic variations. Lastly, as of today, no change in the rate of decay of any radioactive isotope has yet to be found. Instead, the testing of Radiometric Dating is very consistent with the arguments of Star life, and Ice cores.

Jason King: Thanks. Will look into this.

Bree Rosa: Thanks for the answer. As to the genealogies, are you saying that they aren't sequential? Last question!

BRC Hosts Joey and Chris: They seem to be symmetrical rather than in sequence. For example, Bible Scholars find that Moses arranged the genealogy into two symmetrical groups. Ten generations before the flood (Genesis 5), and Ten generations after the flood (Genesis 11). They also found that Matthew arranged the genealogy of Jesus into three groups of 14. The numerical equivalence of the Hebrew letters in King David's name (4+6+4 = D+V+D) using the old Hebrew art of gematria.

Bree Rosa: That's great info to look up. Thanks, and God bless you.

BRC Hosts Joey and Chris: It's definitely eye opening. God bless you as well Bree and like always, please verify our information.​

Victor Hernandez: So, you point out that young earth creationists have the flaw of denouncing scientific facts. I can see that, but don't old creationists run into a similar problem of having to denounce the Bible, since they hold to science?

BRC Hosts Joey and Chris: Hi Victor. We cannot speak for any young or old creationist (there are many views on either side). We believe that operational science helps shed light to topics that the Bible does not address. We don't find a location where the Bible addresses the age of the earth or universe (send us verses if you have any). I know that when we answer questions, the answers are specific to what is being asked. This means that we cannot always explain our entire view in one question without getting out of topic. But if you have any question about our view that is not addressed on here, feel free to ask.

Victor Hernandez: Thanks. I have two questions, but I'll send them through the email.

BRC Hosts Joey and Chris: No problem. God bless.

PSALM 19:1

"For the director of music. A psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands".