Daniel
May I suggest that you check out the Answers in Genisis.org site if you are finding it hard to get your science and theoolgy on the same page . Everything you mentioned about dating methods,Cain ,ice in Greenland and tree rings has been compellingly addressed by the scientist at AiG.I might suggest you with hold being convinced about a lot of "scientific evidence " until you have a closer look at what additional information exisits and fits with the biblical record. Also, if you believe that the bible is true with respect to the origins of mankind then your belief about apparent humans is unfounded.And can I finish about one firther comment you made. You referenced and bolstered some of your information by saying it was peer reviewed.Somehow having research peer reviewed places the research in an authoritative position of correctness.That does have its merit but it must be remembered that the peers are mere morals that hold to evolutionary worldview bias.If you don't present research within the context of that paradigm but rather reference a creationist or intelligent design model the peers won't likely review your research to begin with.There's too much gatekeeping going on in the academy these past many years.Colssians 2:8-9 says it well.

Cheers,

Willy

Believe in an old or a young earth; it doesn't matter. The bigger issue we as Christians should be focused on is the naturalism/theism discussion. This is where the rubber meets the road in discussions of origins.

Now, on the issue of Genesis requiring a 7-literal day interpretation, I have to say that contrary to what some say here, good biblical interpretation doesn't commit one to such a reading of Genesis. In fact, I'll argue below that it might count against it. The young earth view began only in the late 1960's or early 1970's. These late origins of the young-earth view don't make it false, but they do certainly undermine the claim, made by some, that this is the way that conservative biblical scholars through the ages have read it. They simply haven't. In fact, for most of the history of the church, an old earth has been the dominant view; no one knew just how old, of course, because modern dating methods hadn't been invented, but the point is there were no thoughts of a young earth, and evidence of an old earth would've been wholly untroubling to them, just as it ought to be for us.

Moreover, most Old Testament scholars (even conservative ones)--people who are specialists in knowing which interpretations of Genesis are most reasonable--do not think the Genesis creation account is even intended on teaching anything at all about the actual length of time in which the earth or the universe was created. It just wasn't important to the author of Genesis nor to his audience. To be sure the creation account DOES mention lengths of time (i.e. "days") but the purpose of such language is not to teach something about how long God spent creating the world. Is there another explanation for the presence of the word translated in English as "day" in Genesis?

To answer that properly, one has to understand how a person in the Ancient Near East (the ANE) would've understood references to "days" in a creation account--after all, Exodus-era Hebrews were the original audience, not us. Among all the creation stories from cultures in the ANE, it was almost ubiquitous to tell the story using 7 days of creation. The creation stories told by Gentile nations contained all sorts of deities corresponding to the various things being created (the moon was actually a moon god, the sun a sun god, the ocean an ocean god, etc.), so you end up with a pantheon of deities in every ANE culture. Except for the Hebrews, whose account would've been understood to be a stark contrast to the accounts told by the other nations. Wholly unprecedented among ANE cultures, the Hebraic creation account is unlike any other: the moon is just the moon, the sun just the sun, the ocean is just another inanimate thing, and on and on; the point of Genesis is that God alone is the creator and he has no rivals. The audience of Genesis (the Hebrews during the Exodus) would've been familiar with other creation accounts--seven days was just the usual literary device used to tell creation stories; plus, the days serve as a mnemonic device to help make such stories memorable in an oral culture (remember, it's not like they had printing presses back then).

Someone from the ANE hearing Genesis would not have been struck by the "seven-day-ness" of the account, nor would they have ever thought its role in the story was to serve as teaching something about the age of the earth. Rather, they would've been struck by the nature and character of the God of Genesis, creating the world under his own power and without rivals, and how utterly different he was from the "gods" of every other culture on earth. In this light, the Genesis account served a polemic purpose, giving the Hebrews an indicator of just how different their God--the true God--was from those of any of their neighbors.

BTW, this is called the "literary framework" account. Evaluate it for yourself, but many conservative OT scholars (I'm talking Wheaton college conservative), hold the view. At the very least, don't think that to consistently be a Bible-believing Christian, you must hold to a 10,000 year old earth.

oh yes, we're quite serious. and probably smarter than you are. facts are, there are signposts that point to a conscious sentient creator. if you don't realize that, then its hard for ME to believe that there are people like YOU who come to these Christian websites to talk smack with absolutely nothing to back up their claims. Your in hostile territory, bud. Get some.