Should God have destroyed the old Earth and created a new planet Earth that would make story of creation more believable?

Good question :)

thats up to god what he wanted to do with the earth

Um...it's a story passed down from the Bronze age with embellishments and changes made along the way like the children game of "post office".
The assumption is being made that the story of the great flood is true and that God is real.  

Dinosaur fossil and evidence were never wiped clean and if they were, we would never know about them

So with that said, I prefer to stick with material that has less plot holes and makes more sense like those written by the Brothers Grimm, Aesop's Fables, or HP Lovecraft.

If the Bible were written today, was published By Simon & Schuster, & turned into a screenplay, even Uwe Bowles or  M Night Shyamalan would pass it up.   

This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 23, 2017 4:48 PM MDT

I enclose a site from young earth creationists which shows the different calculations over the years.

https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/

I often wonder if the explanation of the bible comes from a counting of when civilisation came in to being rather than a description of a literal creation?

Cain and Abel were both farmers. Cain was also the first founder of a city.
Lamech is the sixth generation, he was the first polygamist. With his wife Adah she bore Jabal "the father of such that dwell in tents,"  and Jubal the one who handles the organ and harp.
With Zilldah they had Tubalcain an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron, whom the freemasons call the first Mason, the forefather of smiths,  and Naamah (which early Jewish Midrash recognises as Noah's wife while some associate her with singing her names means beautiful and pleasure.

Or perhaps something different?

In Rev 6:15 the heavens roll up like a scroll, what is more likely that this happens, or that what is being spoken about is written on a scroll, a scroll of the heavens?

Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion? Can you bring out Mazzaroth (Hebrew zodiac) in its season? Or can you guide the Great Bear with its cubs? (Ursa Major and Ursa Minor/polaris the earths axis). Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you set their dominion over the earth?” (Job 38:31–33)

“Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years” (Genesis 1:14)

Ezekiel 1:10

As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man (aquarius) and the face of a lion (leo), on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox (Taurus) on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle (scorpio).






This post was edited by kjames at April 23, 2017 7:54 PM MDT

No

A point those desperately clinging to the Bible as some sort of supposedly absolute, divine truth miss every time this stance is questioned, is that theirs is just one of any number of religions with any number and type of deities and myths that have been invented by mankind since time immemorial!

You CANNOT take the Bible seriously, let alone try to fit it to science or vice-versa, because it's merely a set of old statements of ancient religious beliefs, religions and sects world-wide; some still extant, others extinct but each true only to its own believers and no-one else.

The Genesis story is superficially attractive only because it does look as if whoever invented it made some attempt to inject a little more logic - WITHOUT having the geological and astronomical knowledge we enjoy - into it, than the supporters of rival ideas such as those espoused by the Ancient Greeks and Romans with their soap-opera panthea. Consequently it is seized upon by Creationists and their not-too-bright "Intelligent Design" brethren as it somehow proves to them, something it does not really prove at all. The result of that folly is that such people limit themselves intellectually and theologically, try desperately to foist it onto others (I call that bullying), insult learning, the intelligence of the open-minded and the Hebrew tribal elder who set it down - and ultimately, unwittingly demean their deity they call God.

Just because something is in the Bible does not make it somehow "true" or "special"! "Bible" only means "book"....

I don't think sniping at each other is answering the original question, which I would suggest is a bit ambiguous. Nor does quoting lumps of scripture - that is literally preaching to the converted for the believer, but meaningless to the non-believer except in so far as it might explain what the former is believing.

The original questions is:
  "Should God have destroyed the old Earth and created a new one to make the story of Creation more believable?"

Leaving aside the astronomical unlikelihood of any such event, it suggests that such replacement would have occurred within Biblical times - and that would ensure no-one would know the original story anyway!

It also implies God would make His handiwork fit human ideas, rather than leaving humanity to try to understand what was created.

I don't think anyone has actually tried to answer the question! Instead the debate degenerated into a sparring match between those who support Biblical literalism, and try to reject knowledge that cannot be made to fit their interpretation of the Bible, and those who may or may not believe in God but see the Bible for what it is, a guide to a particular religion and the beliefs of the society that founded that religion.

I do not believe in God, but I do accept the Bible as a highly-flawed record of a Hebrew society's beliefs some 2 to 3 millennia ago. Many of the flaws spring from umpteen editions and translations since. However, if I did believe - if I were to be a practising Christian - I most certainly not be a Biblical literalist, for two reasons; one cultural, the other theological.

   My cultural reason is that hard-line literalism rejects and scorns Learning. It scorns efforts to understand the Universe, whose wonders Astronomy, Geology and Palaeontology seek to comprehend and explain; to show truth and beauty far, far beyond anything Moses could have ever comprehended. Actually I think if Moses could come back he would embrace modern knowledge scientific knowledge wholeheartedly for - in his terms - showing so much more than he could have imagined, of his God's work. The door-stepping cult evangelist would merely stick to the script he is ordered to promulgate, with the analytical depth of an advertisement for a new sink cleaner: "Tea Stains? Limescale? Try New Light!" ("Lite"?)

   My theological reason is that literalism unwittingly scorns what it is trying to support.   Treating as "true" a myth that could never have explained the creation, but only suggest a few metaphors, not only both scorns modern learning and patronises that story's writer; but also scorns the very God it is supposed to celebrate, and cheapens his Universe into some sort of celestial conjuring act of "just-add-water" instancy.

So what is the answer to the original post?
I don't believe there is one. Whether you are a hermetically-minded Bible-thumping member of some literalist cult, a radio-astronomer who is a lay Methodist preacher on Sundays, or an atheist with a PhD in Palaeontology, I am afraid the question does not stand up to its own logic.