I'm in the creation vs. chance camp. I don't believe that puts me in the young vs. old earth arguemwnt.
I saved this exert from a article I've since lost so don't know who to give credit but thought it put things well.
FWIW.
"The theory of evolution demands that the earth and universe be old while special creation can have either a young or old earth. Though the Bible does not us give an exact age of the earth, there is no indication in Scripture that the earth is very old. The genealogies in Scripture do not allow an unlimited amount of time between Adam and Abraham.
Scientific evidence has been brought forward that would indicate the earth may be young after all but there is no consensus among Christians. Most scientists, Christian and non-Christian, believe the earth and universe are old. The age of the earth is not an issue that has been settled among believers. Scientist Paul Zimmerman writes:
Thus the evolutionist needs a very old earth. His theory is utterly hopeless if the earth is young . . . On the other hand the creationist can operate with a young earth or a very ancient one . . . The creationist does not need millions of years to make his theory workable. For the believer in creation the question is a different one: (1) What does the Bible say about the date of creation? (2) Is this information at variance with the facts brought to light by scientific research? These questions the creationist seeks to answer . . .
Actually neither the scientist nor the creationist can fix the date of the beginning. The Bible permits certain general conclusions, but it does not give the age of the earth. The scientist in turn can make certain interesting calculations, but his computations are often interlarded with slippery assumptions, and the results are beclouded by serious questions that rise in the research (P. A. Zimmerman, "The Age of the Earth," in Darwin, Evolution and Creation, P.A. Zimmerman, ed; St. Louis: Concordia, 1959, pp. 144,145).
It is also possible that time had a different quality before sin entered the universe. This would make it impossible for us to pinpoint the time of creation.
Concerning the age of the earth, Mark Twain wryly commented:
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. This is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian period just a million years ago next November, the lower Mississippi river was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing rod. And, by the same token, any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now, the lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along with a single mayor and a mutual board of Alderman. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns out of such a trifle investment of fact (Samuel L. Clemens, Life on the Mississippi, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1874, p. 156).
We again want to emphasize that the age of the earth is not the main issue in the Bible/science debate; it is chance versus design. Old Testament authority Ronald Youngblood offers a fitting conclusion:
No one knows for certain, of course, when the beginning was. But the Old Testament is far more interested in the fact of creation than the time of creation, and the simple truth that Gods creative activity took place during an indeterminate time known as "the beginning" was joyfully celebrated by poet (Ps. 102.25) and prophet (Isa. 40:21) alike (Ronald Youngblood, How It All Began, Ventura, California: Regal Books, 1980, p. 22). "
Then there are some Christians who not care less how old the earth is. I am one.
