(1) How were those dates determined? It is possible that the dating methods are faulty.
(2) It is possible that Creationist timelines are faulty.
Most of the dates have been obtained by radiocarbon dating, with some based on other means. Radiocarbon dating has been found to be pretty accurate; even biblical scholars have agreed with to this. These sites are good examples:
The American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.There is a continuous, unbroken occupation of much of the western US between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago. To accept the global flood, we would have to accept that the people living in that area were disrupted by the flood yet repopulated the area immediately, and that the flood left no trace. Even more telling, there is continuity in mtDNA before and after this time period.This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
There is good evidence in a couple of places for a large-scale flood (the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington, for example). The dates, locations, and events which occurred there are pretty well understood. Too early for a global flood, and pretty well restricted to specific areas of the Northwest.
I am only bringing this up because of the attacks on science which have become common on these threads. Some of these have become pretty bitter, and there has been a tremendous amount of disinformation.
You seem much more reasonable. I would prefer if science went one way and religion went another, and left each other alone. Deal?
(But if science is attacked, I tend to fight back.)
"Most of the dates have been obtained by radiocarbon dating, with some based on other means. Radiocarbon dating has been found to be pretty accurate; even biblical scholars have agreed with to this."
It is really not _that_ accurate. It is _somewhat_ accurate, but there are a lot of variables that make it difficult to determine if the date is right without calibration.
The actual pattern of migration matches the flood record, because they migrated along the coasts. The flood would have left the oceans much warmer, but caused an ice age on the mainland. This left the outer edge of the continents to be habitable, because they had the water to warm them. And this matches the migration patterns of the american indians (I may be totally wrong about this -- I have no direct references but am going off of what I remember from an AiG conference last year).
Just FYI -- carbon dating gives a young age for all organic objects in the geologic column. Even diamonds can date under 50,000 years.
"There is a continuous, unbroken occupation of much of the western US between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago. To accept the global flood, we would have to accept that the people living in that area were disrupted by the flood yet repopulated the area immediately, and that the flood left no trace. Even more telling, there is continuity in mtDNA before and after this time period."
I think it is simply a post-flood population.
"There is good evidence in a couple of places for a large-scale flood (the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington, for example). The dates, locations, and events which occurred there are pretty well understood. Too early for a global flood, and pretty well restricted to specific areas of the Northwest."
But proposing such floods again comes into the face of the evidence of massive upheaval throughout the paleozoic and mesozoic. Certainly many large but local floods have occurred in many times and places. But none of this compare to what would have caused such large-scale geologic features throughout these time periods.
"You seem much more reasonable. I would prefer if science went one way and religion went another, and left each other alone. Deal?"
Nope. That would only be a valid way of operating if religion were a fairy tale or a set of morality stories. What Christianity says is that God is active within His creation. If that is true, then His activities must necessarily have left its mark on the universe. If such marks are studied by assuming beforehand that the creator of the marks does not exist, it will, by necessity of its assumptions, misinterpret the marks. If God has not left marks, then the Bible is false, and you should feel sorry for me even thinking to believe in it.
The only way to separate science from theology is either to (a) remove science from historical inquiry, or (b) get rid of religion altogether. I think an integrated approach works much better. Understanding God according to the revelation we have will give us a much fuller understanding of the evidence than if we try to do it ourselves alone. My 3-year-old tries to do a lot of stuff all by himself. To be certain, he is quite amazing and I'm continually impressed with what he can do. But, ultimately, he does better with my help and instruction than he does on his own. If he listens to me, he learns faster, and understands better. If he ignores me, he is trapped by his misunderstanding of the world.
Some people say that Christians use God as a crutch. I resent that. I use God as a wheelchair :)