If you claim an event required 400,000 years to occur it's not observable or testable. . .So what subject would you call the study of, say, the volcano under Yellowstone park?
Volcanology
That's not science?
Sure
It hasn't been "observed" by man,
Volcanic activity has not been observed at Yellowstone???
aand the eruptions are something approching that time lapse. Should we just ignore it?
Since an erruption is not expected for thousands of years, why not? OTOH, if you could find some use for the properties there such as energy production you would not be using an estimate of the age of the earth to take advantage of it.
Now, here is something to ponder. Supposed we wake up one morning in the next few months and find the Yellowstone volcano growing and ready to erupt. Would that change your thinking on the age of the Earth?
A large, destructive event as is now believed happened by science has not been observed. If you were consistent, you would disbelieve any claim of past eruptions of Yellowstone because it's not a repeatable, testable, hypothesis. And has not been observed by man.
But, creationists are never consistent. They trash "science", but then take the properties described by science and twist them to bash evolution.