Does It Take Millions And Billions Of Years To Make Diamonds?

Does It Take Millions And Billions Of Years To Make Diamonds?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, March 24, 2026 (Donate)

I was taught it take millions and billions of years to form diamonds. It is often suggested that natural diamonds today are billions of years old.

As a materials scientist and a biblical creationist, I suggest they are not that old. Why would I be so bold as to suggest such a thing? Because there are many ways to make diamonds today and none take much time at all!

Gemstone; Photo by Bodie Hodge

Why presume that diamonds take long ages to form in the first place? You need to understand that it is because of a worldview that is predicated on long age uniformitarianism and billions of years—the secular humanistic religion.

Science is observable and repeatable. Yet, no one has ever observed diamonds forming billions of years ago. No one has ever been able to repeat that alleged slow process.

From a true scientific perspective, diamonds can be formed quickly today using several well-established industrial and laboratory methods. These processes replicate the essential conditions needed for diamond formation: high pressure, high temperature, or carbon-rich environments.

These methods are so well known that I’m going to list the scientific technical papers with each method instead of footnotes. That’s how well known these methods are. Let’s hit these methods.

High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT)

This is the most traditional industrial method and closely mimics natural diamond formation in the earth.

Carbon (usually graphite) is placed in a press and subjected to pressures of about 5–6 GPa (roughly 700,000–900,000 psi) and temperatures of about 1,300–1,600°C. A metal catalyst such as iron, nickel, or cobalt is typically used to help dissolve the carbon and allow it to crystallize as diamond.

A small diamond seed crystal is placed in the chamber, and carbon atoms attach to it, growing a diamond over days to weeks.

·       Ekimov, E. A. (2020). High-pressure, high-temperature synthesis of diamond from hydrocarbons. Progress in Materials Science, 113, 100671.

·       Wentorf, R. H. (1965). Synthesis of the cubic form of boron nitride. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 42(12), 4115–4116.

·       Zhang, J., Li, M., & Wang, H. (2024). A review of diamond synthesis, modification technology, and cutting tool applications. Materials & Design, 235, 112345.

·       Hemley, R. J., & Mao, H. K. (Eds.). (2021). Synthesis of diamonds and their identification. Mineralogical Society of America.

Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD)

This is a more modern and highly controlled laboratory method. You take a thin diamond seed and then place it in a vacuum chamber filled with a carbon-rich gas, usually methane mixed with hydrogen. The gas is energized using microwaves, hot filaments, or plasma, which breaks the molecules apart. Carbon atoms then deposit layer by layer onto the seed, forming diamond.

This is done at a lower pressure than HPHT and the temperatures range from 700–1,200°C—far less than the last method. Growth can occur over days to weeks, producing very pure diamonds.

·       Balmer, R. S., Brandon, J. R., Clewes, S. L., Dhillon, H. K., Dodson, J. M., Friel, I., Inglis, P. N., Madgwick, T. D., Markham, M. L., Mollart, T. P., Perkins, N., Scarsbrook, G. A., Twitchen, D. J., Whitehead, A. J., Wilman, J. J., & Woollard, S. M. (2009). Chemical vapour deposition synthetic diamond: Materials, technology and applications. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 21(36), 364221.

·       Martineau, P. M., Gaukroger, M. P., Lawson, S. C., Twitchen, D. J., Evans, D. J. F., & Crowder, M. J. (2009). High crystalline quality single crystal CVD diamond. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 21(36), 364205.

·       Zhang, J., Li, M., & Wang, H. (2024). A review of diamond synthesis, modification technology, and cutting tool applications. Materials & Design, 235, 112345.

Detonation Synthesis (Nanodiamonds)

This method produces extremely small diamonds very quickly. Carbon-containing explosives are detonated in a sealed chamber. The explosion generates extremely high pressure and temperature for a fraction of a second, causing carbon atoms to crystallize into nanodiamonds before they can revert to graphite.

The resulting diamonds are typically only a few nanometers in size. But they have great industrial uses.

·       Danilenko, V. V. (2006). On the discovery of detonation nanodiamond. In Ultrananocrystalline diamond: Synthesis, properties, and applications (pp. 1–19). William Andrew Publishing.

·       Shenderova, O. A., & Gruen, D. M. (Eds.). (2012). Ultrananocrystalline diamond: Synthesis, properties, and applications (2nd ed.). William Andrew Publishing.

·       Zou, Q., Zeng, X., & Wang, H. (2010). Fabrication of nanodiamond by detonation method. Materials Research Innovations, 14(3), 187–190.

Shock Compression (Impact Methods)

Similar to detonation, this method uses sudden shock waves to create diamonds. A projectile or explosive force compresses carbon-rich material (like graphite) at extremely high pressures and temperatures for a very short time (seconds). This can convert carbon into diamond.

This process is also believed to occur naturally during meteorite impacts and possibly very explosive volcanoes (in small amounts). At both sites, people have commonly found diamonds. Regarding volcanoes, most diamonds might have been formed well below the surface where condition were more favorable to formation and they were transported via magmatic and lava movement.

·       Danilenko, V. V. (2006). On the discovery of detonation nanodiamond. In Ultrananocrystalline diamond: Synthesis, properties, and applications (pp. 1–19). William Andrew Publishing.

·       Shenderova, O. A., Nunn, N. A., & Ozerin, A. N. (2019). Synthesis, properties, and applications of nanodiamonds. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B, 37(3), 030802.

·       Yan, X., Li, Z., & Chen, Y. (2026). Formation mechanisms of nanocarbon under extreme detonation conditions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.18316.

Ultrahard Ceramic and Catalyst-Free Methods

Laboratory advances have shown that diamonds can be formed without metal catalysts under extreme conditions.

Using advanced presses and carefully controlled environments, graphite can be converted directly into diamond at very high pressures and temperatures. Some experiments in labs have even shown diamond formation at somewhat lower temperatures by applying shear stress along with pressure (hours, weeks).

·       Stehlik, S., Varga, M., Ledinsky, M., Jirasek, V., Artemenko, A., & Kromka, A. (2015). Size and purity control of HPHT nanodiamonds. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 119(49), 27708–27720.

·       Ekimov, E. A. (2020). High-pressure, high-temperature synthesis of diamond from hydrocarbons. Progress in Materials Science, 113, 100671.

·       Zhang, J., Li, M., & Wang, H. (2024). A review of diamond synthesis, modification technology, and cutting tool applications. Materials & Design, 235, 112345.

Plasma and Laser-Assisted Growth Variations

These are refinements of CVD-like techniques. High-energy lasers or plasma fields are used to enhance carbon breakdown and deposition. These methods allow precise control over diamond growth, including doping diamonds with elements for electronics.

·       Shenderova, O. A., Nunn, N. A., & Ozerin, A. N. (2019). Synthesis, properties, and applications of nanodiamonds. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B, 37(3), 030802.

·       Lipatov, E. (2020). Diamond synthesis and applications. In Advanced materials research. IntechOpen.

To Summarize

Modern science methods that researchers use show that diamonds do not require millions or billions of years to form. Under the right conditions, they can be produced in:

• Seconds (e.g., detonation and shock methods)
• Days to weeks (e.g., HPHT and CVD)

Each method shows that diamond formation depends primarily on conditions, not time. Industry today routinely produces diamonds rapidly for both commercial and scientific purposes. And of course, some companies make gemstones for jewelry as well.

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.

 

Is Science Secular?

 Is Science Secular?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, April 16, 2025 (Donate)

Many people today insist that science can only be done by people who have a secular worldview—or at least by those who are willing to leave their religious views at the door as they enter the science lab. Several popular atheists and evolutionists have contended that people who reject the big bang and the evolution of living things are so backward that they cannot even be involved in developing new technologies.[1]

But is this really the case? Or are these opponents of a biblical worldview simply making assertions that cannot be supported with facts and substantial arguments, having an incorrect understanding of true science?

A friend of the ministry was  challenged by the comment that science can only be done through a purely secular, evolutionary framework. Such statements are blatantly absurd and are a type of arbitrary fallacy called an “ignorant conjecture.” In other words, these people simply do not know the past, nor are they familiar with what science really is. 

Image from Presentation Library

Examples of Scientists Operating from a Christian Worldview

If science is a strictly secular endeavor without any need for a biblical worldview, then why were most fields of science developed by Bible-believing Christians? For example, consider Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, James Joule, Joseph Lister, and James Clerk Maxwell. Were these “greats” of science not doing science? Francis Bacon developed the scientific method, and he was a young-earth creationist and devout Christian.

Even in modern times, the inventor of the MRI scanning machine, Dr. Raymond Damadian, is a Christian working with Christian principles. The founder of catastrophic plate tectonics, Dr. John Baumgardner, is also a devout Christian. And those who recently founded the scientific field of baraminology are also Christians. Also, I (Bodie Hodge) developed a new method for production of submicron titanium diboride for the materials science and ceramics industry. 

Professor Stuart Burgess developed a new mechanism for the two-billion-dollar European (ESA) satellite Envisat. Dr. John Sanford developed the gene gun. And let’s not forget Werner von Braun, the young-earth Christian who was the founder of rocket science and led the US to the moon. These are but a few examples of people who held to a biblical worldview and were quite capable as scientists and inventors of new technologies.

The Foundation for Science Is Biblical Christianity

Furthermore, science comes out of a Christian worldview. Only the God described in the Bible can account for a logical and orderly universe. God upholds the universe in a particular way, such that we can study it by observational and repeatable experimentation (see Genesis 8:22). Because God upholds the universe in a consistent manner, we have a valid reason to expect that we can study the world we live in and describe the laws that God uses to sustain the universe (Colossians 1:17).

In the secular view, where all matter originated by chance from nothing, there is no ultimate cause or reason for anything that happens, and explanations are constantly changing, so there is no basis for science. Though many non-Christians do science, like inventing new technologies or improving medical science, they are doing it in a manner that is inconsistent with their professed worldview. On what basis should we expect a universe that came from nothing and for no reason to act in a predictable and consistent manner? When non-Christians do real science by observable and repeatable experimentation, they are actually assuming a biblical worldview, even if they do not realize it.

It makes sense why “science” in the US is losing out to other nations since our science education system now limits science in the classroom exclusively to the religion of secular humanism (and its subtle variations).

It Is Not “Science vs. Religion”

So, the debate is not “science versus religion.” It is really “religion versus religion.” Sadly, science is caught up in the middle.

The battle is between the religion of secular humanism (with its variant forms like agnosticism, atheism, and the like), which is usually called secularism or humanism for short, and Christianity. They both have religious documents (e.g., the Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III for humanists, and the Bible for Christians); both are recognized religions by the Supreme Court;[2] and both receive the same 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. Both have different views of origins.

Humanism has astronomical evolution (big bang), geological evolution (millions of years of slow gradual changes), chemical evolution (life came from non-life) and biological evolution (original, single-celled life evolved into all life forms we have today over billions of years) in its view of origins. In other words, evolution (as a whole) is a tenet of the dogma of the religion of humanism in the same way as biblical creation (as a whole, with six-day Creation, the Fall, global Flood, and the Tower of Babel) is a tenet of the dogma of Christianity. It is a battle between two different religions.

In recent times, the state and federal governments kicked Christianity out of the classroom, thinking they kicked religion out; but instead, they just replaced Christianity with a godless religion of humanism. This was done as an attack designed by humanists.

An Evolutionary Worldview Equals Science?

There is a misconception that this evolutionary subset of humanism is science. Science means knowledge and scientific methodology that is based on the scientific method (observable and repeatable experimentation). However, evolution (whether chemical, biological, astronomical, or geological) is far from scientific. Consider the following facts:

1. No one has been able to observe or repeat the making of life from non-life (matter giving rise to life or chemical evolution).
2. No one has been able to observe or repeat the changing of a single-celled life-form like an amoeba into a cow or goat over billions of years (biological evolution).
3. No one has been able to observe or repeat the big bang (astronomical evolution).
4. No one has observed millions of years of time progressing in geological layers (geological evolution).

The reason some people are confused about the religion of humanism—and specifically its subset of evolution—as being science is a bait-and-switch fallacy. Let me explain. One of the key components of humanism is naturalism. Basically, it assumes a priori there is nothing supernatural and no God. In other words, nature (i.e., matter) is all that exists in their religion (only the physical world).

As a clarifying note, Christians also believe in the natural realm; but unlike the naturalist or humanist, we believe in the supernatural realm, too (i.e., the spiritual, abstract, conceptual, and immaterial realm). Logic, truth, integrity, concepts, thought, God, etc., are not material and have no mass. So those holding to naturalism as a worldview must reject logic, truth, and all immaterial concepts if they wish to be consistent since these are not material or physical parts of nature.

This is very important because naturalism or natural science has been added as one of the dictionary definitions of science. For example, it was not found in the 1828 Webster’s dictionary, but it was added in one form in the 1913 edition. And, interestingly, they removed the definition that “the science of God must be perfect” in the 1913 edition.

So, although many appeal to observable and repeatable science through methodology to understand how the universe operates, another definition has been added to muddle this.[3] Science is now defined as “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.”[4]

For example, evolutionists have continued to popularize Darwin’s scientific observation of the changes in beaks of Galapagos finches as proof for the evolution of one animal kind into another. This is a great example of the bait-and-switch fallacy where scientists present real scientific evidence (the difference in finch beaks) but stretch the truth to say it gives validity to the mythology of microbes to man evolution (the “switch” part of the fallacy). This trick leads many to believe that evolution is real science. The only real science in this example is the observation of the difference in finch beaks.

People are baited with this good methodology of observational science (again developed by a Christian named Francis Bacon), and then they are told that evolution is science while subtly appealing to another added definition: that of “natural science” or “naturalism.”

This is like saying another definition of science is “Nazism.” Then Nazis could say they are “scientists” and get into a classroom! This is what has happened with humanism. The religion of humanism (with its founding principle of naturalism) has been disguised as science by adding another definition to the word science. But it is not the good science we think of that makes computers, space shuttles, and cars. It is a religion. To call evolution science is a bait-and-switch tactic.

Science and processes that supposedly take millions of years

Many processes that evolutionists profess takes millions of years do not. Using science in the present, we observe that processes that we have often been indoctrinated to believe requires millions of years really don’t. Consider this list: 

Evidence	Time to form (observed)	Scientific evidence for millions of years
Diamonds (vapor deposition)	A few days[5]	No
Diamonds (pressure and temperature method)	3-4 days[6]	No
Diamonds (from loved ones and pets ashes)	Three months[7]	No
Coal	Months[8]	No
Oil from Sewage	Days[9]	No
Oil from Animal waste	Days[10]	No
Oil from Brown Coal	2-5 Days[11]	No
Oil from Algae	30 minutes[12] - 60 minutes[13]	No
Petrified Wood (heat and chemical method)	Days[14]	No
Petrified Wood (chemical method)	Hours[15]	No
Petrified Wood (natural elements)	Less than 360 years[16]	No
Opals	Weeks[17]	No
Gemstones (volcanic origin)	Upon eruption[18]	No
Gemstones (lab origins, synthetic)	Days[19] with Flame Fusion, Melt Process, Solution Process	No
Fossils	Less than 24 hours[20]	No
Stalactites	Days[21], less than 100 years[22]	No
Stalagmites	In one summer[23]	No
Rock	Less than 150 years, Bell encased in rock[24] Less than 125 years, Tawawera Items[25] Less than 50 years, Petrified Hat[26] 3 months, Yorkshire Bears[27] Hours, Concrete (observed)	No
Rock layers (Catastrophes)	Hours, Mt. St. Helens[28]	No
Rock layer lamina (lab; Air + Water)	Almost immediately[29]	No
Canyons	Days, Canyon Lake Gorge[30] Days, Little Grand Canyon[31] Six days, Burlingame Canyon[32] Georgia’s Little Grand Canyon[33]	No

 

So, Is Science Strictly Secular?

No. In summary, science can never be strictly secular for these reasons:

1. Science is based on observable and repeatable experimentation that only makes sense in a biblical worldview where God’s power keeps the laws of nature consistent. In other words, science proceeds from a biblical worldview.
2. Secular humanism, with its subset of evolution, is in reality a religion and not science.
3. Many of the greatest scientists were Bible-believing Christians whose biblical worldview motivated their scientific studies, showing that a strictly secular view is not necessary for performing science.

Image from Presentation Library

Where Humanism Leads

Christians will continue to conduct scientific inquiry and invent things, processes, and science fields as we always have. If the US and other places neglect our accomplishments and inventions and continue to push the religion of humanism on unsuspecting kids in the classroom (usually unbeknownst to most) by limiting its definition of science to the humanistic worldview, then my humble suggestion is that they will continue down the same road humanism leads. That is, people who are consistent in their naturalistic worldview shouldn’t care about true science or the world, since nothing ultimately matters in that worldview.

 

---

[1] As an example of this dismissive attitude, Eugenie Scott (formerly) of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a leading religious humanist, says, “Like other pseudosciences, ‘creation science’ seeks support and adherents by claiming the mantle of science.” http://ncse.com/rncse/23/1/my-favorite-pseudoscience.

[2] US Supreme Court, Torcaso v. Watkins.

[3] There is also the issue of operational science versus historical science. For more see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science.

[4] Merriam-Webster Online, s.v. “science,” accessed March 8, 2013, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science.

[5] Greg Hunter and Andrew Paparella, “Lab-Made Diamonds Just Like Natural Ones,” September 9, 2015, ABC News Internet Ventures, produced for Good Morning America, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=124787.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Rae Ellen Bichell, “From Ashes To Ashes To Diamonds: A Way To Treasure The Dead,” NPR, January 19, 2014, http://www.npr.org/2014/01/19/263128098/swiss-company-compresses-cremation-ashes-into-diamonds.

[8] R. Hayatsu, R.L. McBeth, R.G. Scott, R.E. Botto, R.E. Winans, Organic Geochemistry, vol. 6 (1984), p. 463–471.

[9] Australian Stock Exchange Release, Environmental Solutions International Ltd, Osborne Park, Western Australia, Oct. 25, 1996. Media Statement, Minister for Water Resources, Western Australia, October 25, 1996.

[10] Dr. Andrew Snelling, “The Origin of Oil,” Answers 2, no. 1, p. 74–77, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Christopher Helman, Green Oil: Scientists Turn Algae Into Petroleum In 30 Minutes, Forbes.com, 12/23/2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/12/23/green-oil-scientists-turn-algae-into-petroleum-in-30-minutes/.

[13] B. Thomas, “One-Hour Oil Production,” ICR, January 13, 2014, https://www.icr.org/article/7874/.

[14] Editors, “Instant Petrified Wood,” Physics.org, January 25, 2005, http://phys.org/news/2005-01-petrified-wood-days.html.

[15] Hamilton Hicks, Sodium silicate composition, United States Patent Number 4,612,050, September 16,1986, http://www.google.com/patents/US4612050.

[16] Andrew Snelling, “ ‘Instant’ Petrified Wood,” Creation, vol. 17, no. 4, September 1995, p. 38-40, online September 1, 1995, https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/instant-petrified-wood/.

[17] Dr. Andrew Snelling, “Creating Opals,” Creation ex nihilo 17, no. 1, Dec. 1994: 14–17.

[18] Editors, Mount St. Helens Gift Shop Website, http://www.mt-st-helens.com/obsidianite.html, downloaded April 7, 2014; Editors, “How Gemstones Are Formed,” GemSelect, accessed August 18, 2015, http://www.gemselect.com/other-info/gemstone-formation.php.

[19] Synthetic Ruby http://www.madehow.com/Volume-4/Synthetic-Ruby.html.

[20] Ben Coxworth, Lab-made fossils cram 1000s of years into 24 hours, New Atlas, July 25, 2018, https://newatlas.com/lab-made-fossils/55619/.

[21] Marilyn Taylor, Descent, Arizona Highways, January, 1993, p. 11.

[22] Emil Silvestru, The Cave Book, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2008, p. 46.

[23] Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge, A Flood of Evidence, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2016, p. 125.

[24] Bell-ieve It: Rapid Rock Formation Rings True, Creation, vol. 20, no. 2, March 1998: 6, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/catastrophism/bell-ieve-it-rapid-rock-formation-rings-true/.

[25] Renton Maclachlan, “Tarawera’s Night of Terror,” Creation, vol. 18, no. 1, December 1995: 16–19, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/catastrophism/taraweras-night-of-terror/.

[26] John Mackay, “Fossil Bolts and Fossil Hats,” Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 8, Nov., 1986, p. 10.

[27] M. White, “The Amazing Stone Bears of Yorkshire,” Answers in Genesis, June 1, 2002, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v24/n3/stone-bears.

[28] John Morris and Steve Austin, Footprints in the Ash: The Explosive Story of Mount St. Helens, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2003.

[29] Guy Berthault, Experiments on Lamination of Sediments, Creation, Vol. 3, No. 1, April, 1998, pp. 25-29, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/experiments-on-lamination-of-sediments/. 

[30] Michael P. Lamb and Mark A. Fonstad, “Rapid Formation of a Modern Bedrock Canyon by a Single Flood Event, Nature Geoscience, June 20, 2010, p. 4, DOI: 10.1038/NGEO894.

[31] John Morris and Steven A. Austin, Footprints in Ash, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2003, p. 70-75.

[32] John Morris, “A Canyon in Six Days,” September 1, 2002, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/natural-features/a-canyon-in-six-days/.

[33] Rebecca Gibson, “Canyon Creation,” September, 1, 2000, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/natural-features/canyon-creation/.