It seems to me that the biblical account/s are open to interpretation, in part because they do not address age directly.
This is not a thread to discuss this further (jar), as it is focused on the correlations in dating methods and their results.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying this idea of dating things is outside the Site's intended consideration of Evolution Vs Creationism, and only the techniques of Modern day dating are under discussion?
Is this a part of the site where the science people get their science straight among themselves, and some other location exists for the Creationism people?
It occurs to me that though Genesis is open to private interpretations, it does establish some links between the geological and biological events it enumerates and the time line of seven "days" which could be understood as the same geological rock layers we use radioactive dating to identify in regard to age.
My point being that things like first life appearing in a Spontaneous Generation during the third "day" coorelated one-to-one with science Abiogenesis in the Archeozoic "evening"/Proterozoic "morning" Eras.
Now disregard this idea if this thread is purely a scientific review for us science people so we are all on the same page about our particular disciplines. [/B]
(I agree, it is good that such lesson be examined by the science side of these discussions so the real facts are clear to all science minded people posting here.)
This thread is where creationist people can attempt to justify any concept they have of the age of the planet, life, the universe, etc. by showing how the correlations exist.
So this is the place where one MUST either say the Bible contradicts science and there science is wrong, or conversely, that the Bible says is wrong because science contradicts people who SAY what the Bible says, not what it DOES say.
The fact that it is way long later, in Gen 1:14, that the 24 hoiur day is even created makes no difference in this ridiculous limitation to people whose reading comprehension is so poor and science people who want to pull their pants down here without my too cents?
Not really. This is the place where you see how science explains all the correlations in a coherent and rational manner, and that if you think you have a alternate explanation, that you must then also be able to explain all the correlations, or admit that it doesn't explain the evidence that contradicts a young earth.
Well that surprises me.
I though the Evolution Vs Creationism site was actually about science demonstrating that the Bible is wrong particularly in Genesis1.
With that understanding, I post what the Bible actually says, which is NOT a young earth.
So you silence this input because it eliminates the conversation if I am correct,... ... and it negates your attack on the Bible. You want to focus on the Straw Man of a very small bunch of Christian dummies who can not read Genesis comprehensively.
What I see is a set of rules which allow science people to pretend they have overcome the Christian faith in the bible by focusing on the few imbeciles.
Appearances are that the bulk of the creation side are young Earth.
I think many would love to see a one-on-one (or few-on-few) "Great Debate" on this issue, between the young Earth creationist side and the not a young Earth creationist side.
Feel free to propose such,
1) Thank you fpr moving my post to a place acceptable to you. I hope people here wil go there andl ask qeustions about measuring the History of the Earth by using geology as the ruler or clock.
2) In regard to your question here, "Does the Bible say the Earth is young?" I agree with you science minded people. So does the pope, by the way.
In 1998, the pope said that the ToE was to compelling to mainyain arguments against it. Hence the Catholic christians are also against the few remaining YEC Protestants.
3) This thread apparently is intended to use science to oppose the remaining christians who are called YECs. I add my sentiments to the science arguments which supports this criticism, and I also criticize the YEC reading comprehension.
I am in full support of all the science presented here that ridicules the YEC nonsense.
4) I add the observation that, using correct reading comprehension also criticizes the way YECs understand Genesis.
My contribution to this thread adds the argument that YECs can't read comprehensively.
Genesis agrees with science by telling the YECs in Gen 1:14, that the 24 hour Earth Day is a different "day" or duration than the seven that are referred to from Gen 1:1 on.
The history of the universe is measured by seven major events. Those events have long durations called "days" by the bible writers, but that word does not mean 24 hour earth days.
The Hebrew word yowm can mean a 24 hour day, but can also mean any duration even an Age.
Gen 1:14 clearly explains to the YECs that Earth Time appears with first life on the third cosmic duration, i.e. the Mesoarchean evening of the Archean Eon and the Proterozoic morning:
It is not an attack on the bible, rather it is an attack on an interpretation of the bible that tells people that the earth is young. If you do not ascribe to such an interpretation then this does not attack the bible as you interpret it.
...there is no need for you to participate further on this thread, as the purpose of the thread is to have people who disagree with the age of the earth to present information on how they explain the correlations that occur.
That was very informative. Thank you.
You see this thread as science people Vs YECs on the issue of seven "days."
That was not clear to me in the Opening Post. I now am advised that the Opening Post ought be understood as "YECs only in defense of Young Earth misinterpretation of Genesis."
I bow to your exclusivity and will refrain from interacting with you from here on out.