In the bible it said the earth started out 6,000 years ago. Science proves its around 6.4 billion years ago..?

Science DOES NOT prove the earth is ancient.

Quite the opposite.

you are right that the Bible clearly claims that the earth is young. Those that claim otherwise disagree with Jesus - who said that Adam and Eve were created "in the beginning". And with God's own finger when he wrote on the tablets that he created in 6 days with a day rest as a model for our 7 day week.

Evolutilonsts choose to interpret the evidence to try and support their 'religious' ideas.

It is curious that most people accept assurances that the earth is old, despite the fact that most dating methods suggest the earth is young.

These methods range across many different scientific disciplines.

http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-univers...

The existence of short lived comets (they would not exist if the galaxy was old. The Oort cloud was invented to explain them, but has no observational support whatsoever.)

The recession of the moon. The moon is receding from the earth at about an inch each year. This puts an upper limit on the earth/moon system far less than 4.5 billion years.

The earth's magnetic field is decreasing, and has been measured for a hundred years of so. Extrapolating backwards puts a low upper limit on the age of life on earth. Life cannot survive in very high magnetic field.

Not enough salt in the sea. We can measure the inflow and outflow of salt. If the oceans had started with no salt they would have reached their current salinity in a short time.

The same method applies to dozens of other minerals too, not just salt.

Too much helium in rocks. Helium, being very light, escapes from rocks, yet is found in rocks alleged to be very ancient.

Too little helium in the upper atmosphere. This was pointed out in Nature as long ago as 1957.

Coal and diamonds contain carbon 14. Carbon 14 decays to immeasurable amounts in about 50000 years. Yet all coal and some diamonds (all alleged to be ancient) have been found to contain carbon 14.

Erosion. The average height reduction for all the continents of the world is about 60 mm (2.4 inches) per 1,000 years, which equates to some 24 billion tonnes of sediment per year

On the scale of one human life-span, these rates of erosion are low. But for those who say the continents are billions of years old, the rates are staggering. A height of 150 kilometres (93 miles) of continent would have eroded in 2.5 billion years. It defies common sense. If erosion had been going on for billions of years, no continents would remain on Earth.

This problem has been highlighted by a number of geologists who calculated that North America should have been levelled in 10 million years if erosion has continued at the average rate. This is a ridiculously short time compared with the supposed 2.5-billion-year age for the continents.

And there are many others: Saturn’s rings defy old age explanations; There are different types of stars, and according to evolutionary theory there are the wrong number of the different types; Mercury is the densest planet and according to evolutionary theory should not be where it is; Mercury has a magnetic field, contrary to evolutionary predictions; the sun has far too little angular momentum for old-age evolutionary theories.

Dinosaur bones, alleged to be millions of years old, have been found containing red blood cells – hardly 65 million years old! (this has been documented by secular scientists – see National Geographic for example).

Much evidence for age is clearly faulty, and often involves radiometric dating. Rock from Mt St Helens volcano was dated as millions of years old when it is known to be just decades.

http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-a...

Of course all dating methods rely on observations in the present and assumptions about the past. If there was one method indicating youth for every method indicating great age, then it would be reasonable to doubt the young earth methods. But there are 10 (or more) methods indicating youth for every method suggesting great age. One wonders why scientists not only ignore the majority of evidence, but actively suppress it.

According to Archbishop Ussher[1650AD] Creation occurred Oct 23 4004 BC.

James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself. Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, by the arguments set forth in the passage below, Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 2348 BC `on a Wednesday'.

Ussher used Gen5 which puts the flood at the incorrect year -

Ussher has too many years in his chronology: 30 years too many -

@ 2013AD it is not the year 6017AM but the year 5987AM; 5 more years until the fall of 'Mystery' Babylon and the 7 year tribulation.

I do believe you are on to something. It is much more wise to reach a conclusion from a persepctive such as yours, rather than to trust a politically motivated scheme. Science has accomplished things. But it doesn't thrive without carrying the ugly mean step sister with it. It depends on big money donated by filthy stinking men who lie cheat and steal. So you know alot of false information is easily found in every aspect of the science community. The Bible is very clear. As it always has been. The wisdom it generates is timeless. And you have to understand that supernatural events that DID occur long ago are rejected by science. Therefore, false theories are used to promote so-called "facts" in science. Nobody can prove the million years theory. Their methods and ideas are flawed. And only accepted by those who either want to believem or don't have the ability to believe otherwise.

The fact that you stated that the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old just proves you haven't read it thoroughly, no where in the bible does it say that. The idea that the earth is 6000 years old came from Bishop Ussher who added all the generations up in the bible and came to the conclusion that it was 6000 years old. Also, the bible has been proven wrong on almost every account front to back and back to front, the bible itself proves the god of the bible doesn't exist because there's too many mistakes and contradictions in it, and if you think talking snakes, donkeys and burning bushes existed and that god created light before the sun, then you have some serious problems using logic.

You wrote:

In the bible it said the earth started out 6,000 years ago. Science proves its around 6.4 billion years ago

Both claims are incorrect.

Actually I believe science predicts the world to be around 13.7 or 13.8 billion years old.

But to answer your question, the Bible and science do not contradict each other.

If you'll read the account of creation in Genesis, there were of course 6 days of creation, but the sun wasn't created until the 4th day. Since we get our 24 hour day by the earths rotation, and it's rotation around the sun, obviously God was not referring to a 24 hour day.

Hope this helps! God bless :)

7500

Look again. The word day does not mean 24 hours but long periods of time, eons of time maybe.

So 6.4 billion years is about right.

The bible was written by bronze age sheep herders who had no understanding of science or how nature worked. Do you really want to use writings from these people to form your understanding of the universe?

There is no 100% proof of that