How Old Is The Earth?

Those who promote flat earth on the forum tend to have a subversive character. Let's avoid that topic publicly even if you believe it.
Let's also stop getting all worked up about censorship from the oligarchs since to do so with the above statement being written would be hypocritical. While we're at it if we could avoid quoting scripture to prove a point that would be now on brand as well. Psalms 19:1 should never be uttered on this forum, nor shall Genesis 1:6.

Or have a walk into this forum: and have your mind blown. Traditional catholics who subscribe to FE.

All kidding aside - i'm not trying to be subversive Roosh. The leaking of flat earth back into the modern world is a divisive measure surely from the Masons who started perpetuating the global theory some 500+ years ago. Understand that science is compromised. Nye, Sagan and Feynman share my alma matter and i know full well that there are plenty a secret society at that university that breed on lonely nerds that want a spotlight if they can just spew some lies and stick to the globalization script. When you start to realize how big the lie is, it helps you to blissfully detach from the world and the trivial secular debates.
Last edited:


I think we agree for the most. Perhaps what will be discovered is something utterly alien to what we know now, something to be unlocked with new reasoning, to explain the changes and divergences we notice. In any event, how the species change is not because of the irrational survival of the fittest argument. That argument does not explain anything.

Science is a Christian practice corrupted by The Devil over many centuries. I would argue that the corruption begins with the Reformation and ends with The Woke.
The world has not know any corruption greater than popery 1400 - now. The 'church' was burning people alive for reading scripture in their own languages. Only Satan could inspire such deeds.


Science must always bow the knee to the clear teachings of Scripture. Very good job with your hermeneutics, Roosh, and for understanding the long war against God. The best young earth creationist and debater is Dr. Jason Lisle--I think you will be edified by his presuppositional apologetics. Godspeed in your quest for truth.


Something not mentioned in the discussion thus far is that the preoccupation with the Earth's age seems to be primarily an American phenomenon. I'm a cradle Orthodox Christian in Eastern Europe, and the only places I see the Earth's age even being debated is in the US. The Church is okay with a bit of mystery. The need to have an answer to every single question is a protestant quality that permeates American culture, and thought.

It might help fellow Orthodox Christians to know that the Church has no position on this topic. The same is true with evolution. Human beings share anywhere between 50-70% of DNA with all multi-cellular organisms on Earth. God used the same building blocks to build all of Creation. The Earth potentially being a few billion years old shouldn't be a stumbling block to our faith. It should strengthen it. If true, that's incredible. Glory to God!

God bless you all in this thread.
Last edited:


Something not mentioned in the discussion thus far is that the preoccupation with the Earth's age seems to be primarily an American phenomenon. I'm a cradle Orthodox Christian in Eastern Europe, and the only places I see the Earth's age even being debated is in the US.

That's fine for you, but my faith journey started with Genesis 1. The original sin was my gateway to the Gospel.

Many Christians live an unrepentant life, because don't really believe in the original sin.

All the stuff happening in modern churches is a result of that: no fear of God, female leadership because Eve's sin is dismissed etc.

The Church is okay with a bit of mystery. The need to have an answer to every single question is a protestant quality that permeates American culture, and thought.

Wanting answers is primarily a white people quality, which ensured their survival in harsh climates. Wanting answers lead me to Christ in the first place. I wasn't born into a traditional church, so that quality was essential for salvation.

I have many born/raised Christian fellows, wo are fully indulged in the worlds narrative and become confused, when you tell them that non-mainstream thinking is a precondition to stop being an unbeliever. Sometimes I have the impression, that some don't actually want to win souls.
How old is the earth? Is the Bible right? Science? Argue for arguing sake to change closed minds? Good luck with that.

Does it even matter? Would it make any difference one way or the other?

Nope, take Jesus advice and let the dead bury the dead and follow him. And this would make a difference and matter to your life.

Btw, I am like Roosh on one way and was a biologist at one time.


It does. It's one of the stumbling blocks to believe in crucifixion and resurrection of the Lamb and why this sacrifice was necessary.
Note that this is your interpretation, brother.

This is not the view of the Orthodox Church, or other churches. The age of the Earth just isn't relevant. It may be the view of other traditions, though.


Note that this is your interpretation, brother. This is not the view of the Orthodox Church, or other churches.

Our Lord gave us the book of Genesis and there is not much to interpret into the first verses of chapter 1. The Scripture text is absolutely clear - especially about the timeframe - regardless of the translation.

The age of the Earth just isn't relevant.

It's very relevant for salvation. If the fundamental view of Creation is wrong, nothing built on it makes any sense.


Read Hugh Ross's book Why the Universe is the Way it is. He is a Christian astrophysicist and makes a superb case for the Universe being 14.5 billion years old, and Earth around 9 billion but shows how that is all part of God's plan
*sigh* (mental gymnastics starts here<)

You are thinking of it wrong. God is outside time and space, in a sense. However God didn't create the Earth with ageing animals and decaying atoms for no reason. Rather it would more accurate to say that before 10,000 years ago, Man did not exist as created by God, and so the Earth created for Man did not technically exist either.

Rather the simple answer here is that God created the soul of Man, the thing that makes us different from animals. Or at least that is my first assumption. If we assume the readings of carbon dating are wrong, without questioning why, then are we not ignoring God? Afterall he must have created the world and stars as such for a reason no?
Speaking seriously, the true folly of the atheist is his rejection of all that is spiritual and in turn embracing materialism. I think it would also be a folly to reject all that is material and embrace only the spiritual. God gave us both body and spirit, therefore to ignore to deny God.


We can trust that The Bible is true in the same way we trust that a parable is true. I have the Catholic Magisterium to sort these things out.

You have to believe that the fullness of the truth, i.e., men praying for centuries for wisdom and using it to found the Councils, the martyrs and doctrines of the faith, has an insight that a layman will never have. Evolution is, indeed, a tautology, but no one forces you to accept it.

And it is easier to accept a Flat Earth than to believe a man can become a woman through an act of will or a emotional declaration of intent. That does not make Flat Earth a serious argument for what we observe, but it does not disqualify it as a model meme for resisting the scourges of scientism.
Well it is my opinion, backed by the no observable and measureable curvature, that the ground under our feet is not a 24 thousand miles circumference oblong spheroid.

That leaves scientism with nothing but ad hominem to leverage, and lots of "how dare yous" attitude.


Roosh makes fine argument which seems to solve the chronological problem, but I believe it creates more problems than it solves. On the one hand, if this argument is correct, God would have designed a significant of his creation in order to lead man into temptation, as Slide-Rule had pointed out. On the other hand, chronology is not the only problem with a verbatim interpretation of Genesis. What are we going to do with the description of the sky as a cupola surrounded by water?

Metaphor possibly. But what were the waters above and below in Genesis 1:6-7?

How do we explain that in Genesis 1, man is created after the animals, but in Genesis 2, animals are created after Adam only?

Animals were created first, then God created new ones in front of Adam for him to name

Furthermore, the basic concept of the universe is not unique to the Bible, it is far older. Sumerians believed "the earth was a flat disk surrounded by a vast hollow space, completely enclosed by a solid surface in the shape of a vault. ... Surrounding the 'heaven-earth' on all sides ... was the boundless sea in which the universe somehow remained fixed and immovable. ... Following the separation of heaven and earth and the creation of the light-giving bodies, plant, animal and human life came into existence. ... Sumerian thinkers ... never asked themselves what preceded the sea in time..." (Kramer 1971: The Sumerians). This sounds pretty much like Genesis 1, only God is missing. Shall we believe that God revealed the technical details of the creation to the Sumerians, but nothing about Himself and his law?

All men, including Sumerians, are descendants of Adam. Adam knew these things but after hundreds of years the Sumerian knowledge was garbled (especially after Babel)

Therefore, it seems to me that God did not bother to reveal anything about the technical details of creation (we would find out in time by ourselves), because this technical knowledge is completely irrelevant for our salvation. Therefore, He did not inspire the authors of Genesis to write a scientifically correct account, but he allowed them to use the commonly accepted theory about the universe but added repeatedly: "GOD MADE ... AND IT WAS GOOD", because this knowledge is relevant for our salvation.
Actually, I do not understand why there is so much conflict about the historicity Genesis: God loves to speak in parables. Daniel's and Ezechiel's visions were obviously parables. Jesus used parables all the time, and nobody ever asks if there was really wheat sawn on rocks, or if there were ever virgins without oil.

Truth. The Bible uses lots of figures of speech. Over a hundred from what I've been told (I can name something like 4)


So all the solar system round objects aren't globes or spheres, and Eratosthenes math wasn't right (go search his name with Carl Sagan showing how the ancient Greeks knew and calculated the circumference of the Earth), and we don't fly on routes that deal with the curvature ...

sorry, it doesn't matter, but it's easily disprovable, I just did

but Eratosthenes did first

But Eratosthenes was a scientist and his contemplation of these homely matters changed the world, in a way, made the world.
Because Eratosthenes had the presence of mind to experiment
[something that cannot be said of educated people today], to actually ask whether here, back in Alexandria a stick cast a shadow near noon on June 21st. And it turns out, sticks do.
An overly skeptical person might have said the report from Syene was in error. But an absolutely straight forward observation, why would anyone lie on such trivial matter?
Yes. Why would anyone lie about such a trivial matter?
Erathostenes asked himself how it could be that at the same moment a stick in Syene would cast no shadow, and a stick in Alexandria, 800 km north would cast a definite shadow.

...The only answer! Is that the surface of the Earth is curved.
Well. Color me convinced. It is, after all, the only answer.


Can you spot how the director and Carl funnel you into their mind trap?

I think you mean oblate spheroid good sir. I'm not sure oblong spheroids exist. Perhaps a cylinder?

Edit - wait if an oblong spheroid is a cylinder wouldn't that just be a flat earth, since the flat earth would just be a very short cylinder?
I think you mean pear shaped, good sir.

Last edited:
@Roosh or anyone else with info on a loosely similar topic - earth's population. I never really thought about it until like 3 years ago when I read a random article by a professor along the lines of "Strange statistics people take at truth without questioning". He basically argued multiple different reasons why there's no possible way earth's population can be 7B+ now, and I believe he estimated it at significantly under 1B people. This is a very important topic because so many narratives (anti-Christian narratives, really) hinge upon the universally-agreed truth of 7B+ rampant over-population. On it's face, the number seems absurd, and seems like a ridiculously high number modern governments would promote to back-door fear-driven initiatives such as birth control, Green New Deal, etc.

My question is, does anyone have any more info on this topic? Seems like something that would be relatively easy to analyze mathematically, and assess whether "Given the population in the year 1800, what is the likelihood the population in 2021 would be X". I assume that is a very low likelihood. Pulled from the comments section of the below YouTube video (avoid the 1st minute of video): "In 1750 the population on earth 700 million. In 1900 only 150 years later the population was 1.6 billion - a increase of 130%. End of 2016 only 116 years on the population was 7.5 billion - a further increase of 369% from 1900. In the next 100 years the increase will purportedly be a staggering 1100 %, which results into 90 Billion people on earth."

Edit (one more, admittedly amateur, link):
Last edited: