Neither of those is evidence. Even if the bible does imply such a thing
(and I'd like to see you support that), the bible is not evidence. The
fact that something was accepted before 1859 is not evidence. Your
opinions seem based on nothing.
> If science did not accept an old earth before Darwin published, as
> John Van Wyhe has observed, then his theory of evolution would have
> been dead-on-arrival. In circa 1859 science accepted an old earth
> based on observations of layers stacked upon layers. Other evidence
> was used as well to conclude for an old earth. I believe the highest
> estimate was around 100 million years.
You believe incorrectly. The highest estimate was considerably greater
than that. But so what? Why should you believe something because of the
year in which it was said?
> So I accept earth to be **at
> least** 100 million years in age. I reject almost all modern
> radiometric techniques as unreliable because these lack independent
> external accuracy checks. The reason I say almost is because
> sometimes an external accuracy check exists like, for example, when
> archaeologists or historians already know the age of an
> object. Sometimes, in these context, radio dating is shown to be
> accurate, but these ages are all very young, and we know radio dating
> doesn't work on ancient linens or shrouds.
We do? At any rate, there are multiple accuracy checks. One can, for
example, date the same stratum using different decay chains. Surprise!
They come out the same.
> Contrary to your beliefs, John, you literally have no idea how old
> the earth really is. The reason you have no idea, except that it's at
> least 100 millions years old, is because no deep time external
> accuracy checks exist.
Just to clarify, is that 100 million years, at least, for the entire
earth or for the Phanerozoic? That is, for the part that has the rock
layers those 19th Century guys were looking at. And is life also ancient?
Another question: did the flood leave any significant deposits? Because
if it did, then all those 19th Century estimates go out the window, and
your earth could be much younger.
> Biblical chronology has external star
> alignments, but again this has nothing to do with deep time.
What star alignments are you referring to here?
> In the
> world of naturalistic uniformitarianism rocks date fossils and
> fossils date rocks, a "circular database" (Richard Milton) lacking
> independent external verification. Remember the KBS Tuff dating
> fiasco?
I do, but it wasn't what you apparently think it was. And the circular
argument is just plain wrong. Index fossils *correlate* rocks, but the
dates are assigned by radiometric means. That is, you can tell from an
index fossil that a rock is of, say, Campanian age, but the way you know
how long ago the Campanian was radiometric.