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.
Now that the question is in the open, how old do you think the universe is?
What I mentioned is that the circular method of dating was about to fall due to it’s own weight.
Yes, that is where we disagree, what you see as circular reasoning, I see as cross checking by different methods of dating. Using stratigraphy to set relative ages, older stuff being buried by younger stuff. Using known rates of radioactive decay to estimate dates. Using fossils of known types to date other stuff near them.
Without knowing the date of a magazine, you could observe that there are pictures of women with a certain hairstyle that was popular in the mid 50's and that they were photographed in front of cars with fins and make a pretty good guess that the magazine dates to the mid to late 50's.
If you then find a page with a 1957 date on it, that isn't circular reasoning.
An article announcing sputnik on a later page isn't a circular dating of the space age.
Evidently you have religious believes about the age of fossils that are NOT based on objective science.
Evidently we don't understand what the other is saying anywhere near as well as we'd like to think we do...
Anyway, always a pleasure talking with you. Although we usually disagree, I can depend on you to be intellectually honest, and to make sure I am as well!