Exact? No. Close to 6,000 years? Yes.
"I don't think that many people fully appreciate the difficulties of exegesis here."
I don't think that people fully appreciate the impact of the assumptions involved in a 'scientific' age estimate for either the universe or the earth.
[[I don’t think that people fully appreciate the impact of the assumptions involved in a ‘scientific’ age estimate for either the universe or the earth.]]
Precisely- they FIT the evidences to match the a priori belief, and hteir support for fitting the evidences is based purely on assumptions- when discreprencies arise, or are discovered- such as evidence where it shouldn’t be, all maner of ‘explanations’ are given to discount the evidences- again,m based on nothing but assumptions- but again- here I go being ‘anti-science’ by exposing the assumptions that drive the various dating methods used to ‘determine’ ages beyond 5000 years:
Superposition
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
http://www.fbinstitute.com/powell/evolutionexposed.htm
Stratigraphy
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/bulletins/135/home.html
Dendrochronology
Up to 10000 years tops
Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.”
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
http://www.scientifictheology.com/STH/Pent3.html
Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Very little info on this method
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm
Luminescence Dating Methods
http://karst.planetresources.net/Kimberley_Culture.htm
Amino Acid Racemization
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/
Fission-track Dating
http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html
Ice Cores
Varves
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties
Pollens
Corals
Highly unreliable- you’d need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp
Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
http://www.present-truth.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-13.htm
Patination
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating
why it’s wrong:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059
RaDio helio dating disproves:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/369
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/
http://www.rae.org/
The case for ca. 6,000 more or less is most compelling in relation to the creation of Adam. It's the 6 days prior though that are the sticking point.
Ever read Gerald Schroeder? He makes an interesting case, though I have reservations about it. Anyway, his main point is that time is relative and that time is dilated at our position in the universe because of the expansion of space. It may *look* like 15 billion years from our vantage point, but that from another vantage point only 6 days elapsed. This, I think, cuts right to the heart of the day-age debate by stating (and quite correctly I think) that relativity ensures that the universe could be *both* 15 billions old AND 6 days old, *depending on where you look*. And of course we recall in this context the Scriptural quote that "the day of the Lord is like a thousand years".
We can have this debate. But I'm sick and tired of exegetes puffing up their chests with their own very fallible interpretations instead of some humility, as is proper toward the Word of God.