It’s a pretty robust “house of cards”.
Continuous tree ring counts go back much further than Bishop Ussher’s maximum age of 6016 years and 7 days.
There are scores of scientific dating techniques that cross check, reenforce, and mutually support and refine each other.
They all conflict with Bishop Ussher’s interpretation of Biblical dating.
The Bible gives a sequence of creation events that maps one-for-one with the sequences science have with astrophysics and evolution.
The only difference is the time scale
Please do feel free to cleave to Bishop Ussher’s interpretation of Biblical chronology.
Back in the day we used to say “It’s a free country”.
Of course Bishop Ussher would argue that we only said that during one literal 24 hour day, even before light was divided from darkness.
Me, I’m going with the decay/preservation process is different than we thought.
To do otherwise would require me to live in a world where the fundamental rules can be changed at the will of a capricious god (small g deliberate) to suit any whim or fit of pique.
So far I live in a world that appears to be ruled by a just and consistent God who allows us to glimpse a consistent rulebook that lets us know where we can expect to find minerals, build a bridge that will stand up to expected forces (or not and have them predictably fall), crossbreed for a tastier fruit, etc.
I’ll let you know if that changes, assuming He doesn’t arbitrarily decide that electrons flowing down a wire doesn’t meet His approval...
You are doing what is a “straw man” argument. That is, you put words in my mouth. Specifically “bishop Ussher’s” timeline.
Did I mention WHAT I thought the timeline should be? No. What I mentioned is that the circular method of dating was about to fall due to it’s own weight.
The idea of dating by layer, then fossils by the layer they are found in, then the layer by the age of the fossil, has about gone as far as it can, given fossil finds that call into question the very long ages.
How you got to me touting what I believe to be an erroneous dating by a bishop who lived hundreds of years ago is beyond me.
Evidently you have religious believes about the age of fossils that are NOT based on objective science.
While Ussher’s chronology is certainly up for grabs in its interpretation, that does not mean that by default any other dating method offered up in its place is correct.
The dating method used by scientists has no more basis for accuracy and does not necessarily have to be accepted as true or accurate because it’s basciallly the only other one out there. It is just as liable to be wrong as Ussher’s.
I do not accept Ussher’s chronolgy for a number of reasons, mostly because of assumptions made on which it is based. For the same reason, I do not accept the scientific assessment of the age of the universe; too many assumptions made which can not be verified.
So perhaps some evo would like to try answering these questions....
On the day that God created man, as an adult human beng, how old was man? Was he one day old as anyone who accepts the truth of Scripture would say? Or was he some decades old, as a mature, adult male would be if evaluated “scientifically”?
No doubt from a scientific viewpoint, Adam would be some 20-30 years old, all based on the physical appearance of age. But is that accurate and is God a liar or trickster for creating Adam as a mature adult human being with the appearance of age? Or did it ever occur to those who choose to accuse God of deceit that He simply created man as an adult for purely practical reasons, like He could not have simple laid a sperm and egg on the ground and expected anything to happen?
Is the Bible believing creationist correct for stating that man is one day old in contradiction to the “evidence” of age? Or is the scientist correct in dating the man at decades old when in reality the man was one day old?.
Science works on the presumption that the physical evidence we are confronted with is an accurate representation of the facts. Is that a safe assumption to make and why?