For someone to believe the bible literally they must either not understand or be ignorant of science

I don't think I've ever used all 8,000 or even close, I just don't like having a limit so I set it as high as possible. Premise: If you deny 2+2=4, you either cannot understand it or do not want to understand it. There is no way to say that 2+2≠4, because it has been proven otherwise. Scientific poufs however, are much more difficult to understand than 2+2. The age of the earth, for example. It is a fact that the age of the earth is about 4.6 billion years. The age of the universe is about 14 billion years, another fact. Large numbers are incomprehensible to us, and many are turned away from even trying to understand when the bible claims that the earth is about 6,000-10,000 years old (a much more comprehensible number). The proof is everywhere, literally by looking at the stars you can tell the universe isn't 10,000 years old (assuming you knew how far away they were). The Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away. Well, what does that mean? It means that light will take 2.5 million years to get to us. The mere fact that we can see it should be proof enough that this isn't a biblical world. When it comes to radiometric dating, many young earth creationists like to say that it's inaccurate. To quote a friend of mine during one of our debates, "Carbon dating has given us so many different results to the earths age. If a calculator gives you incorrect answers math answers you need to get rid of it right? " This is a pretty typical response when I try to explain inaccuracy in the bible, and there are two main parts to the fallacy I like to focus on. 1) The variability of radiometric dating, and 2) variability=Inaccuracy. I'm going to assume you understand the basics of radiometric dating, but let me know if I need more detail. First of all, I want to get something straight. Scientists do not use carbon dating to date the earth. That's like using a AAA battery to power a city for a month. It's going to run out long before the month is up. Same with carbon, it has a half life of 5,730 years. So after about 57,300 years there will be almost no carbon left to measure. What scientists use to measure the age of the earth is other radioactive materials with much longer half lives, such as uranium. Uranium has given different ages of the earth, but many confuse these different ages with variability. It's not that dating does not differ, but that their differences are minute. When dating any radioactive material, there is always a margin of error of about 1%. This means that when dating the age of the earth in billions of years, there is a possibility of error ±millions of years. So just because we get different numbers, does not mean that the calculations are wrong, just a margin of error. These facts are just as proven as 2+2=4, the only difference being that one is obvious, and the other requires an effort to understand. Many do not want to understand and I personally am very frustrated by this. Since it takes a conscious effort, and most are satisfied with "Jesus loves you", people do not take the time to understand science and therefore are ignorant.