The Earth / universe(s) is only several thousand years old, as opposed to being several billion

"The opposing religious viewpoints I encounter to my claim maintain that it says in the Bible that the lord created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, and that it also states in the Bible that a thousand years to mankind is a day unto the lord, therefore the heavens and the earth were created in a timespan of six thousand years. Additionally, this viewpoint goes on to claim that the said time frame of six thousand years occurred six thousand years prior to the bible being written, thus making the earth approximately ten thousand years old. I am in no way claiming that the heavens and the earth were not created by God, or even by gods for that matter. What I am claiming is that due to the uncertainty of the validity of the Bible and the numerous ways in which its content is interpreted, no one can claim for certain that they know exactly when the earth was created based on any scripture or scriptures within the Bible, even if God truly did create the heavens and the earth in a span of six thousand years. I therefore reiterate that the view that the bible states that the Earth / universe(s) is only several thousand years old is subject to interpretation, could very easily be a misinterpretation, or is completely false." Under this reasoning, I can understand why you would see how the seemingly arbitrary timeline set by the Bible seems open to interpretation. Especially the "one day is a thousand years" argument. However, the timeline was not developed by this format. James Ussher, an irish archbishop in the 15-1600's actually calculated, in pages upon pages, the age of the earth based on biblical accounts of historical happenings and traced back lineages (ages of death were given as well). So no, this time period is not based on a metaphor, the calculations are actually quite precise and backed up by biblical proof. http://www.answersingenesis.org... "Even if you throw the issue of carbon dating out the window, geological evidence alone provides a wealth of proof / evidence that the earth is more than several thousand years old, despite the occasional misinterpretation of scientific evidence due to constant environmental changes. A good example of proof the the earth is at least older than a few thousand years is the rate at which geological occurrences happen, such as the formation of new land mass from volcanic activity. It would be impossible for the earth to form to its current state at the observed rate of both past and present geological occurrences. Another good source of proof that the earth is at least older than several thousand years is the way layers of soil / rock / ice accumulate year after year, much like rings on a tree. These layers of natural media serve as a solid record / time line, in some cases going back eons." That is indeed a valid assumption and scientists did indeed draw that conclusion based on observed rates. However, the biblical argument is that the flood of noah's time as a global catastrophe of proportions great enough to have caused most if not all of those geological deformities. Creationists can argue that sediments settled in different layers during the flood between period of intense water movement and quiescence. http://www.icr.org... Now that I have made my position defending, I shall now attack old earth theories. The geologic time lines that scientists use have quite a few inconsistencies. Scientists, in developing theories, tend to perform quite a few logical skips. For example, a geologist would categorize the geological strata under the assumption that the natural settling of debris would take centuries. This is definitely the case if nature were left untouched. However, the great flood as a catastrophe would completely undermine this initial premise. In addition, a scientist may examine the layers of ice in the poles and assume that because of seasonal changes, every 2 layers would represent a year. This is also under the assumption that nature is left alone. In reality, if semi-constant rainfall were separated by periods of quiescence, layers of ice would still form that way. "Not only does the physical evidence serve as proof, but the multitudes of scientific theories / principles which are both individually and mutually dependent on such evidence being fact serve to reaffirm the evidence / proof. There are many scientific wonders mankind has achieved, which if such fundamental scientific theories (such as our understanding of how the earth was formed) were incorrect, these wonders would've never taken place (e.g. the development of nuclear technology.)" Much as how an illogical argument can arrive at a valid conclusion, flawed premises in science can still lead to progress in the field of science. Carbon 14 dating as a half-life reaction has little to nothing to do with the basic concepts we have of the atom. Rather, it is the reverse. Our concepts of the atom and atomic science in general helped us to form the concept of the half life reaction and use it as a dating method. The problem is, however, that our premises may be flawed. Tying this back into the general case of science, the geological evidence you provided may very well be valid scientific conclusions, but the fact remains that the creationists have logical explanations that they drew from the bible. Explanations that also happen to have some degree of scientific validity. However, a general bias towards Creationism stifles attempts to perform further experimentation with these theories. Thus, invalidating young earth theories is merely tradition, not so much a justified act. We have one round of exchanges left and you have not yet succeeded in invalidating