It's a matter of semantics. Darwin's theory required the earth to be several hundred years old. That could be rephrased to say evolution predicted an earth at least that old -- the first accurate prediction based on an observed rate of change. Other predictions -- based on the saltiness of the oceans or the gravitational collapse of the sun -- were off by great margins.
"Darwin's theory required the earth to be several hundred years old."
I suppose you meant "several hundred million years old."
I believe Crick (of Watson and Crick fame) currently thinks life must have originated off earth, as he believes there was not enough time for life to originate on the earth.
You've clearly given this some thought. If dating methods differ, what does this imply about dating methods? Do you think there is a reliable way to date the earth? If so, what? And how old? I'd be curious to know your views.
True. One could look at the age of the earth as either a failed objection to the theory, or as a successful prediction of the theory. Pretty good either way. The most important thing, I think, is that the theory is consistent with other fields of science. Including things learned in fields that didn't even exist at the time he developed the theory.