[_ Old Earth _] Time Line Science Vs. The Bible

[samuel]

Using the Genesis record, about 7000 years can be counted before Noah's flood. After Noah to Abraham around 1000, from Abraham to David about 1000, from David to Christ about 1000, Form Christ to present 2000. That is a total of 12,000 years. This of course is still an estimate, and I do not consider it to be absolutely correct.

Now lets consider; time only began after Adam's expulsion from the Garden. His years were not numbered before sin entered into the picture, which brought death. So there is no record of how long Adam was in the garden. This could have been 1000, or 10,000 years, we have no way of knowing.

So neither Science, or Bible scholars can date the age of the Earth. While I am in no way suggesting that science is correct, what I am saying is we are not correct either! by our standards of estimating time. The Earth is probably much older than we think, but not as old as science thinks either since their estimates are purely speculation.

 

[jwu]

but not as old as science thinks either since their estimates are purely speculation.

What particular part of the methodologies which are used to determine the age of the earth do you disagree with?

 

[samuel]

Carbon 14 is not even good enough to cover the possible 12,000 years, let alone more. Noah's flood, and the covering of the Earth with water could also have a great affect on carbon 14 dating.

Much of the strata layering theory is based on unproven math. And a World wide flood could possibly upset that also.

Science has to many if's and but's to be a very reliable source. Theory is just an educated way of saying I guess.

 

[jwu]

Carbon 14 is not even good enough to cover the possible 12,000 years, let alone more. Noah's flood, and the covering of the Earth with water could also have a great affect on carbon 14 dating.

If that is so, then why do we see a correlation between the results of various independent dating methods, as seen on this graph:

Note that lake suigetsu does not show any signs of being disturbed by a global deluge...yet it contains an annual varve pattern which correlates nicely with C14 dating and various other dating methods. Is there any reason why a deluge would maintain such a nice agreement of dating methods, instead of putting them off randomly?
Moreover...why would C14 be affected? There is a continuous tree ring record as calibration which spans more than 12.000 years. It doesn't show any disturbances at the time of the supposed flood. And it shouldn't even exist if such a flood had happened.

Much of the strata layering theory is based on unproven math. And a World wide flood could possibly upset that also.

Unproven math? Do you have examples?

And no, a worldwide flood couldn't "upset" it in the way as we see. There are various threads about this in this forum. The particular sorting of fossils isn't compatible with this, neither is the presence of evaporites, fossilized termie nests, paleosols, limestones and so on. These things are found all over the fossil record, while there should be a large portion without them which marks the flood strata.

Theory is just an educated way of saying I guess.

Far from it. That'd be a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that makes many testable predictions which were found to be correct, it's a well tested hypothesis. While there never is absolute certainty, theories are as close as one gets to that in science for explainative frameworks.