Well it’s a tough one but this is the information which I collected through Internet:
Aristotle thought the earth had existed unceasingly. Roman writer Lucretius, scholarly beneficiary to the Greek atomists, trusted its development probably been moderately later, given that there were no records returning past the Trojan War. Martin Luther, Talmudic rabbis and other utilized the scriptural record to extrapolate once more from known history and concocted rather comparable evaluations for when the earth appeared.
The most renowned came in 1654, when Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland offered the date of 4004 B.C.
Inside decades perception started overwhelming such reasoning. In the 1660s Nicolas Steno figured our cutting edge ideas of testimony of even strata. He gathered that where the layers are not flat, they more likely than not been tilted since their affidavit and noticed that diverse strata contain various types of fossil.
Robert Hooke, not long after, proposed that the fossil record would shape the reason for an order that would 'far precede ... indeed, even the specific pyramids.' The eighteenth century saw the spread of channel building, which prompted the disclosure of strata corresponded over extraordinary separations, and James Hutton's acknowledgment that unconformities between progressive layers suggested that statement had been hindered by tremendously extensive stretches of tilt and disintegration.
By 1788 Hutton had defined a hypothesis of cyclic testimony and elevate, with the earth uncertainly old, demonstrating 'no remnant of a starting—no prospect of an end.' Hutton viewed the present as the way to the past, with geologic procedures driven by an indistinguishable powers from those we can see at work today. This position came to be known as uniformitarianism, yet inside it we should recognize consistency of normal law (which almost every one of us would acknowledge) and the undeniably faulty presumptions of consistency of process, consistency of rate and consistency of result.