The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, not 6000 years old.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,058 times Debate No: 53046
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




The age of Earth is around 4.5 billions years old. However, many people think Earth is not simply because of what Genesis says. Genesis doesn't give EXACT dates as to how old Earth is. It just says that Earth was created in 7 days and other stuff too. When it says 7 days, it doesn't mean specifically 7 days of a duration of 24 hours of one day. It says nowhere about that.

Scientists have also proven Earths estimated age by carbon dating and radiometric dating.

Earth is not 6000 years old.

I do not disprove the Bibles words nor meaning.


Only the Creator of the Earth can make such a claim of the age of the Earth.
Debate Round No. 1


True. But God also lets us find out the true age. He doesn't let us NOT find the age.

And please, you have to say a bit more when you debate. That really wan't much you said. I understand you think God tells you that, but please provide more info.

Because this debate will go nowhere if you say that much.


1. For what reason does the age of the Earth benefit us when the Earth is aging indefinitely?
2. The concept of time is out of our understanding, at best we develop a calendar to keep record of our daily activities which allows us to forecast for our daily bread.
3. And because we seek no further understanding of time than the instruments scientist depend on, we continue to measure within an abstract concept,
Because people have no understanding of time, they consider the Earth 'Old', The earth could be New and we have yet to see its potential.
Debate Round No. 2


It is simple as ABC's: Planet Earth is 4.5 billion years old! The Bible doesn't specifically say how old Earth is.

You should watch at least one episode of the new TV series "The Cosmos" Besides all of the scientific facts it talks about, it has AMAZING special effects.

It is also on FOX, so, assuming you are conservative, you probably would, maybe, want to watch the show?


accumulationofam forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 7 years ago
The opinion is in the interpretation of 7 days in genesis. Those people who accept the bible litterally in genesis are forced to accept that they are 24 hour periods. This is clearly stated in Genesis 1:2 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning"the first day.

only a 24 hour day has evening and morning.

Still there are many other interpretations. Classically the bible is said to interpreted using other internal references for continuity. Hence why some take the 1 day as being 1000 years each. Still others prescribe to a time dilation from the expansion of the universe in which from today's time reference the first day was millions of years long and days got shorter till they are today. So Pro is arguing what science says compared to one literal interpretation of the scripture. I'm not really sure what CON can do against pro's argument accept argue the evidence pro uses is false. I think it is comparing apples and oranges. Beat science with the word of God who is right? well which do you put more validity in?
Posted by Lala_14 7 years ago
@chewster911 your statement is an opinion.
Posted by chewster911 7 years ago
Simple argument is: Bible is not reliable historical evidence,therefore it should not be taken seriously.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Not really any facts or sources. A mostly opinion based debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.