Wednesday, August 31, 2011

The Scientific Method

The Scientific Method is a general description of the process of scientific observation, it is a general description and not an absolute rule.                            
  • Observation is the viewing and recording. and measurements of facts and data. Experimentation is one way of engaging in observation. Observation is simply the collection of data
  • A hypothesis is a tentative explanation of an observed phenomenon used to make testable predictions.
  • Predictions are produced by the application of the hypothesis other inputs to predict the results of future observations. These predictions must be unique because the same prediction from two more hypothesizes can’t distinguish between the alternatives.

 The testing a hypothesis involves making observations based on the hypothesis so as to see if its predictions agree with the observations.


  1. The observation is made of a known particle of known mass and negative charge following a parabolic path.
  2. The hypothesis is made that a small massive positively charged particle exists at the center of attraction. This is similar to the way the atomic nucleolus was discovered.
  3. The prediction is made of the path of a similar positively charged particle, that it is of the same mass and but opposite charge of first particle. It should follow a hyperbolic path showing that it was deflected.
  4. If prediction occurs, then the prediction succeeds and the hypothesis supported.
  5. If the new particle follows the same path as the first then the prediction fails and the hypothesis falsified so a new hypothesis needed.
  6. The new hypothesis is made of a small neutral extremely high mass particle; possibly a mini black hole; with enough gravity to bend particle paths.
  7. The new prediction for is that neutral particle of the same mass as the first two should follow the same path as the other two particles. If prediction occurs then the prediction succeeds and the new hypothesis supported

Scientific Method is just a general description that works best under controlled condions in experiments. It can test for particular predictions by controlling variables. However, it does not always work well for real world observations. Since variables often not controllable it often can not test for particular predictions.

It does not always work well for historical sciences were variables are usually not controllable. It such cases particular predictions often can not be test. Furthermore destruction of evidence can come from both natural and manmade sources. Unfortunately manmade destruction of evidence can occur by scientists themselves, such destruction can be both accidental as well as deliberate.

The fact is that the Scientific Method is not always used exactly as described and it’s use varies depending on the situation.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Is Creation Science, Science?

The critics of Creation Science claim that it is not falsifiable or subject to change. However this is not true because Creation Science theories are falsifiable and subject to change.
Both Creationists and Evolutionists use observation and measurements to develop, and test hypotheses and theories that make falsifiable predictions. They both revise and abandon theories based on new data and they both use internal peer review. Both sides also have some holdouts for generally abandoned theories. These similarities show that Creation Science is at least as scientific as Evolution.

Some Creationist theories have been falsified and most Creation Scientists consider these theories to have been falsified. As is often the case there are still some supporters but most Creation Scientists do not support them any more.

The Canopy theory was developed in early days of Creation Science. It was years before it validity could be checked. Today most Creation Scientists agree it is unworkable because it was found to trap way to much heat. Further more a thin enough canopy to not cause over heating would not provide the expected radiation shielding. 

C-decay was the first attempt at a scientific solution to the distant starlight problem. It made predictions about red shift verse distance that have been proven false and the evidence that had been put forth in favor of  c-day has been  proven faulty  To day despite a few hold outs most Creation Scientists consider it to have been falsified.

Some creationist theories have been modified to deal with problems that were founf wit the original concept.

Dr. Humphreys’ White Hole Cosmology was modified by Humphreys to deal with some initial problems involving a problem with seeing near by Galaxies. Humphreys discovered that time would have been stopped within the even horizon. The basic concept has also been expanded on by Dr. Hartnett by applying Cosmological Relativity to a bounded universe.

Some Creationist Science Theories have made successful predictions. These include accelerated nuclear decay, which successfully predicted zircon helium diffusion rates. Another example is Humphreys’ model of planetary magnetic fields which not only predicted the magnetic field strength of Neptune, but also predicted the observed decrease in Mercury’s magnetic field.

The critics of Creation Science also claim that it is not science calling it Creationism. However Creationism is the philosophical bases for Creation Science and not Creation Science itself. Even many creationists don’t understand this. The problem is that calling Creation Science, Creationism is the same ascalling Evolution Science, Naturalism.


         Naturalism: the philosophical position that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

         Creationism: the philosophical position that the earth and universe and life were  created by God or some other supreme being.

         General Evolution: The view of origins that the universe, all that is in it including life came about by natural processes.

         Biblical Creation: The view of origins that the earth and universe and life were  created by God as describe in the Bible.

         Evolution Science: The Scientific theories that result when starting with an Evolutionary view of origins.

         Creation Science: The Scientific theories that result when starting with a Biblical view of origins.

The issue is one of philosophical foundations

Naturalism is the philosophical foundation General Evolution while Creationism is the philosophical foundation Biblical Creation. Both of these philosophical foundations are philosophy; not science they are not subject to change,

General Evolution is the theoretical system of Evolution Science while Biblical Creation is the theoretical system of Creation Science. Both of these are structure and not Science not subject to change
Both system produce scientific theories that can be categorized as Evolution Science and Creation Science. This is where the real science is because these scientific theories are both subject to change.

Anti-creationist claims that biblical creation prevents scientific investigation. The claim goes that since the Bible gives the story of how it all began, so there is no need for investigation. It is further claimed that creationists know the out come in advance. These claims are wrong.  

The Truth is that Biblical Creation has inspired a lot of scientific investigation and theories. Examples Include Dr. Humphreys theory of planetary magnetic fields, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, Accelerated nuclear Decay, and The RATE project which was a massive Creation Science research project studying radio isotopes.

The Biblical account does not give all the details of Creation and the Flood leaving a lot is left for us to discover by researching and studying nature. Creationists do not know the out come of research in advance.  While the Bible does provide an historic framework It does not give all the details. Evolutionists also have an historic frame work and they work from those results from Naturalism. That historic frame work is Big Bang to man Evolution

A comparison of Creationist and Evolutionists

  1. Both have distinct historical frame works.
  2. Both build theories around their respective historical frame work.
  3. Both have expectations about results.
  4. Both interpret what they find by way their respective historical frame work.
  5. Both are equally scientific.

Monday, August 29, 2011

Science and Religion

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Said Albert Einstein
Science and religion are often seen as rivals and establishment science and religion some times have conflicts. This is because the Scientific Establishment refuses to allow any consideration of God or the supernatural.  When allowed to do so science and religion can compliment each other. That fact is that religion can inspire scientific research and science can help the understanding of religion.

Creation Science it a good example it shows this concept in action. Starting with the Bible has produced successfully tested predictions and science has provided useful insight into a number of Biblical passages.

Examples of theories inspired by the Bible with successful predictions: accelerated nuclear decay which successfully predicted zircon helium diffusion rates and Humphreys’ model of planetary magnetic fields which predicted the magnetic field strength of Neptune and the observed decrease in Mercury’s magnetic field.

Further mote science has helped the understanding some Biblical passages.

Job 38:4a Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?

Most of the dry land on the planet Earth sits on a granite crust that goes deep into the Earth. This crust is literally a foundation on which the continents sit.

Job 9:6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

This verse refers to earth quakes but also to pillars of the Earth. Often in caves stalactites and stalagmites grow stalactite over stalagmite. Sometimes they grow into a single pillar from floor to ceiling forming literal pillars of the Earth.

The point science and religion can complement each other. However this requires that science to be open to religious or supernatural concepts. Refusing to even consider religious concepts is being antagonistic to religion.

The fact is that the scientific establishment refuses any consideration of the supernatural. The result is that when mainstream science and religion deal with the same topic there will be conflict with the exception of Atheism which denies the supernatural.  

This conflict is most evident in origins research where the denial of the supernatural eliminates all consideration of God. So God is excluded before any evidence is even considered and any attempt to include intelligent involvement in origins is fought passionately. This makes the scientific establishment actively antagonistic to the Biblical account of creation. It has been removed from consideration even before any evidence is considered.

The scientific establishment at fault because they exclude God and the supernatural right from the start before evidence is even looked at, no consideration of intelligent involvement in origins is allowed and they are antagonistic toward those who violate these rules.

A classic example is Richard Sternberg; a devout evolutionist; was editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. He authorized the publication of a paper by Dr. Stephen Meyer that had passed peer-review. The paper “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology. As a result he was persecution by the  Smithsonian and the National Center for Science Education. It’s a safe bet no other editor would risk the same fate by publishing an ID friendly paper.

The real controversy is that by refusing any consideration of God the scientific establishment is pushing atheism. So the real controversy is not science vs. religion not Creation vs. Evolution. The real controversy IS Atheism vs. Theism and more specifically Atheism Vs. the Bible.

In Conclusion the scientific establishment refuses any consideration of God and no dissent on this is tolerated. They have effectively declared war on God and the controversy results form the refusal of theists to bow the knee to atheism.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Introduction to Physics

Physics is the study of energy, and matter and  the ways they interact. Physics not just formulas you may not understand. While physic is scientifically expressed by formulas, it is more than those formulas. It can take the form of practical experience. 
Physics is even found in sports. Baseball is a prime example of physics in sports, specifically ballistics. Pool is another example of physics in sports specifically collision physics.

The two main founders of physics are Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton. These two men are the main ones responsible for establishing modern physics, there were others involved but they were the most significant.

Physics is central to all other physical sciences including Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Cosmology and Geology.  Physics has shown us much about the structure of matter, the nature of Energy and the nature of space and time. Physics has the potential to shown us how the universe works and the nature of reality itself.

Concepts of Thermodynamics

Thermodynamics is the study in physics of the transfer of energy, the work it does and it’s affect on matter. Thermodynamics is dynamic and not kinetic so it is not concerned with the actual processes of energy movement. Thermodynamics deals with the results of the transfer of energy.
There are two main fields of Thermodynamics Classical Thermodynamics and Statistical Thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics was developed as a result of the study of steam engines and was based entirely on empirical measurement and it lead to the four laws of Thermodynamics. In their simplest forms Laws of Thermodynamics can be stated as follows:  

  • 1st Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
  • 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: The amount of unusable energy in a closed system increases.
  • 3rd Law of Thermodynamics: As the temperature of a substance approaches absolute zero it’s entropy of approaches zero.
  • 0th Law of Thermodynamics: Two objects in thermal equilibrium with a third object are also in equilibrium with each other. It is labeled the  0th Law instead of the 4th because it is more fundamental than the 1st law but it was discovered after the other three.
Statistical Thermodynamics works at microscopic as well as macroscopic level. It not only explains why the four laws of Thermodynamics work and it explains things that Classical Thermodynamics can not.

In conclusion the principles of Thermodynamics are the most well tested scientific principles known. They are also so general that they apply to everything in the universe including the universe itself. Thermodynamics is path independent so it often does not matter how one get from state “A” to state “B” which is why it applies to everything

Friday, August 26, 2011

What is Creation Science?

Creation Science is the  scientific study of origins from a Biblical perspective and despite what evolutionists may claim this is not a contradiction of terms. This is because the Bible is a historical document.
The Bible is not just a collection of religious stories or a collection of myths, neither is it history mixed with myth. The Bible is the most reliable ancient document known and it has repeatedly been proven right by archeology. In fact archeologists in Israel often use the Bible as a guide.

Creationists produce scientific theories but the Biblical account is used as a starting point. The resulting theories make testable predictions many of which have been successful. Example of creationists theories with successful predictions include:

  1. Dr Humphreys’ model of planetary magnetic fields which successfully predicted planetary magnetic field observations, including the recent measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field.
  2. Accelerated nuclear decay successfully predicted zircon He diffusion rates.  

Dr Humphreys’ White Hole Cosmology is an example of a creationists theory the need adjustment and where it’s been done. Other creationists theories have been largely abandoned when shown wrong such as The Canopy theory of the Genesis Flood and C-decay

Contrary to what Evolutionists may claim Creationists do engage in Peer-Review. When possible main stream journals are used however there are three major Creation Science Peer-Review Journals.

  1. Creation Research Society Quarterly.
  2. Journal of Creation
  3. Answers Research Journal

Thursday, August 25, 2011

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states the following:
  • It is impossible to turn all of the heat put into a system into work so that you can’t make a 100% efficient engine.
  • The amount of unusable energy in a closed system increases.
  • The entropy in a closed system always increases.

The basic concept behind the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is the fact that heat always spontaneously flows from hot objects to colder objects. It never spontaneously flows from cold objects to hot objects.

When heat transfer is being used to do work some of the heat always goes to the colder location. This wasted heat is called entropy. Simply put you can never turn all of the heat into work.

Now heat can be forced to go from a cold object to a hot object by applying work, which also reduces entropy, thus showing that work can reduce entropy. This process is the bases of air conditioners, refrigerators, and heat pumps.

Entropy is the measure of a system's thermal energy unavailable for conversion into mechanical work. It is also a measure of the equivalent states or multiplicity of a system and there by a measure of the disorder or randomness in a system.

In Classical Thermodynamics entropy is mathematically defined as dS = dQ/T.

These results in the change in entropy as: DS = Q/T.

  • S = entropy
  • Q = Heat energy
  • T = Temperature

In statically thermodynamics entropy is mathematically defined as S = k ln W.

This results in the change in entropy as: DS = k ln W2 / W1.

  •  S = entropy
  •  k = Boltzmann constant
  •  W = the multiplicity of a system.

Entropy and Disorder

Entropy is related to disorder through multiplicity of a system denoted by W. The multiplicity of disordered states (Wd) is far more than the multiplicity of ordered states (Wo) such that Wd >> Wo  this means they Sd >> So.

Since 2nd Law of Thermodynamics indicates that entropy tends to increase it also indicates that a system’s degree of disorder tends to increases. The only way to increase a system’s order and there by decrease its entropy; is to do work on the system.

Abiogenesis and 2nd Law

Abiogenesis is life spontaneously being formed from non life by naturalistic means. However living things are the most ordered and complex systems known to exist, and the simplest known living cell is infinitely more organized and complex than the most organized non-living chemical systems produced in a lab

This means that the entropy of a living cell is many orders of magnitude lower than the entropy of the same amount non-living chemicals. This means that abiogenesis goes against the 2nd law’s tendency towards increasing entropy.

While entropy can be decreased by applying work to a system no evidence exists for a naturalistic mechanism for such a large decrease in entropy. Without this mechanism the 2nd law suggests that abiogenesis is impossible.

Applied Energy and 2nd Law

While the 2nd Law shows that energy applied a system can reduce its entropy, it does not show how the manner in which energy is applied to a system affects entropy.  It does not show the deference between construction work and a bomb.

Construction work reduces a system’s entropy while bombs increase a system’s entropy.  Unfortunately the 2nd Law does not show the difference.  So an additional principle is needed to show this difference and it is also need to really determine if abiogenesis is possible or not.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

1st Law of Thermodynamics

The 1st Law of thermodynamics can be stated as follows

  1. The Law of Conservation of Energy.
  2. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but it can change forms..
  3. Total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant.

From a creation perspective this makes sense since the Bible says the God completed his creation on day six. It is however a problem from an evolutionary perspective, since it needs all of the energy in the universe to naturally come from some place.

One proposed evolutionist solution to their problem of the source for the universe is to invoke negative energy with the idea that the total amount of positive and negative energy adds up to zero energy. The problem with this notion is that what is theoretically called negative energy is not truly negative but a dipping of vacuum energy (zero point energy) below the zero point energy "empty" space. Therefore the level is always positive.

The final nail the coffin of the notion that the total amount of energy in the universe is zero is that negative energy must be followed by a larger amount of positive energy so the positive energy must always be larger than negative energy. As a result the total energy of the universe must be > 0.

The significance of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is that the total amount of energy in the Universe is constant. It is also impossible to get more energy out of a system than is put into it. You can not get energy from nothing it has to come from some place. Most often it is stored in the form of some type of fuel but regardless energy has to come from some source. 

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics tells us a lot about what systems are possible and what systems are impossible. Any system that puts out more energy than is put into it from all sources is impossible. To be possible a system must it needs to get energy from some place, even if it is not an obvious place. This does not mean that you can’t get more energy out of a system tan you put into it but it has to come from someplace.

Free Energy is often associated with pseudo-science and conspiracy theories but it is a legitimate scientific term. In classical thermodynamics free energy is the energy in a system available to do work. However “free energy” refers to a group of devices alleged to put out more energy than the user supplies to them. Though I have never seen a convincing demonstration of a free energy device the question here is does free energy violate the 1st Law of thermodynamics? 

The answerer is no as long as the free energy device gets energy from some place. Now there are recognized devices that technically qualify as free energy they include solar cells which get their energy from sun light and wind mills that get their energy from wind. However most alleged free energy devices seek to tape the Universe’s zero point energy. Now it is highly debatable as to whether or not this zero point energy can be taped but in principle it does not violate the 1st law thermodynamics.   

In conclusion the 1st Law of thermodynamics simply says that the amount energy in a closed system remains constant.  This is regardless of how it is changed or is moved around. To add energy to a system it needs to come from some place else.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

DNA and the Biblical Eve

According to the Bible all mankind is descended from one man and one woman; Adam and Eve. Now genetic studies have shown this to be the case. One of the interesting outcomes of these studies is clear support for the fact that our most recent female ancestor ( Eve ) is actually older than our most recent common male ancestor. ( Noah )

Of the two lines of study the one pointing to Eve is the most interesting. Providing compelling evidence for Biblical history.

In 1987, a team at the University of California at Berkeley compared the mitochondrial DNA ( mtDNA ) of several groups of people from different geographic locations. The conclusion was that all of the people tested had the same female ancestor and they referred to her as "Mitochondrial Eve." They then calculated the mutations rate based on the evolutionary assumption that we divergenced from an alleged common ancestor with chimps 5 million years ago. They concluded based on this estimated mutation rate that Mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000 - 200,000 years ago

Ten years later in 1997 a paper entitled A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region by Parsons, Thomas J., et al. was published in Nature Genetics. They compared the mtDNA of many mother child pairs and found a mutation rate in mtDNA about 20 times more rapidly than previous estimate. Based on these measurements they calculated Mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago. This is just about the time that the Bible says that Eve lived.

Further research has been done in this area and they are quite interesting. Parsons later combined his research with others (Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock) resulting in a figure of  1 motion per 1,200 years which is 1/10 the evolutionary estimate and 1.5 time Parsons original figure for a estimated date of mitochondrial Eve of 10,000 years.

While the variation of in different areas of mtDNA is to grate to pin down an exact date, it is important to note that when mutation rates are directly measured the rates derived are consistently found to be an order of magnitude faster than the evolutionary based estimates. The dates end up being just a few thousands years. This is far more in line with the Biblical account that than the evolutionary estimates.

DNA Support for the Bible
 This is a two e-book set on how DNA supports the Biblical account of Adam and Eve and the Noah's Flood.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Why the Genesis Flood had to be a Global Flood.

Reconciling the Biblical account with uniformitarian geology, most often involves claiming that the Bible doesn't really say what it says. They have tried to argue that the Genesis Flood was just a large local flood. There problems with this idea are numerous.

If the Flood had been local the would be no reason for Noah would to build an Ark. God decided to send the Flood 120 years before it started so even on foot with all their live stock Noah and his family could have easily gotten to the other side of the world and so as to escaped any local Flood.

Even if God had Noah built the Ark for some symbolic reason, there would have been no reason for sending animals to the Ark. Noah would have only needed enough of his own live stock to start new herds. However the Ark was big enough to hold every kind of land vertebrate that has ever existed. This would have been overkill for a local Flood. In addition birds could have easily escaped a local Flood, yet they are specifically mentioned as being on the Ark.

The Bible says waters of the Flood peaked at 22 feet above the mountains, this would by definition be a Global Flood. Genesis 7.

A local flood would not affect people who did not live in the vicinity of the flood. That would make it useless as a judgment of man's sin.

God promised never to send such a flood again. There have been numerous local floods throughout history, so God would have repeatedly broken that promise.

In addition, any flood; in the Mideast; large enough to fit the Biblical account could not have been local because the area is just too flat. It would have had to have been Global.

In the late 1990's it was claimed that a local flood of the Black Sea was the Genesis Flood. This is just another local flood theory, based on some discoveries in the Black Sea. This flood is said to have resulted from an influx of water from the Mediterranean. The problem is that it does not fit the Biblical or extra biblical accounts. Also it could not have deposited the Ark anywhere near the mountains of Ararat. As of March 2003 it has been discredited.

The simple fact is that the Genesis Flood was global.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Sea Salt levels indicate Earth’s seas are less than a billion years old.

Salt is dumped in to the ocean by rivers and other sources. At current rates of input and removal of salt the maximum age of oceans; at the current rate of input and output is 38 million years. However we could be at a point of high input and low removal, but even if we project back the minimum possible input rate and maximum possible removal rate, we still get a maximum age is 62 million years.

Some Evolutionists have claimed that Austin and Humphreys greatly underestimated the amount of sodium output. They claim that 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr of sodium is removed instead of the 12.2 x 1010 kg/yr. They then claim that this shows that sodium is in equilibrium, but the they erroneously used the minimum possible influx rate of 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr calculated by Austin and Humphreys, rather than the actual influx rate of 45.7 x 1010 kg/yr. When the actual influx rate is used it result in a net influx rate of 7.6 x 1010 kg/yr, and this clearly not in equilibrium. This new net influx rate results in a maximum age for the oceans of 273 million years.

According to evolutionists; oceans are supposed to be 3 billion years old. The Flood could have dumped all of this salt in to the oceans in a few months.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

The Biblical age of the Earth.

Before discussing the evidence for a young Earth, it is necessary to show that this is what the Bible really teaches. There are those who try to squeeze the billions of years claimed by evolutionists in to the firstchapter of Genesis. Are any of these views consistent with what the Bible actually says?
One method called the gap theory assumes that there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The problem with this view is that there is no place in the Bible ware such a gap is mentioned. They usually try to put Satan's fall in this Gap, but the Bible makes it clear that Satan's fall took place no earlier than day 6.
Ezekiel 28:13. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the Beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
It clearly says that Satan was in the Garden of Eden before he fell and the according to Genesis 2 tthe Garden of Eden was created on the same day as Adam, which was day 6.
The Day age and progressive creation theories try to make the days of creation something other than 6 ordinary days. The problem is that according to Genesis 1 the Earth and the Universe were all created in 6, literal Earth days. This fact is demonstrated by "and the evening and the morning were the nth day." This is clearly a reference to an ordinary day night cycle. They will also claim that while the Hebrew word yom can mean a literal day, that it can also mean an indefinite period of time, the problem with this is that yom always means ordinary days when used with a number. When included with the " evening and morning " reference there can be no other interpretation other than 6 literal Earth days.
This is further supported by Exodus 20:9-11:
Exodus 20:9. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Here God clearly commands the Israelites to work 6 days and rest on the 7th. It also show that this principle to be a commemoration of the 6 days of creation with God resting on the 7th. The days between Sabbaths are unquestionably 6 literal Earth days, the connection support the fact that creation was 6 literal Earth days.

To determine the Biblical age of the Earth it is necessary to find an event that has an established date and then use Biblical references to calculate from there. The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar is often used. The next step is calculating the time between this event and abraham's birth. Here disagreements in how to interpret certain passages can lead to some variation but the variation is not more than few hundred years.

Calculating the time between Abraham, and creation relies on the ages of the father at the birth of the listed son; as give in the genealogies in Genesis 5.and 11.

Genesis 5
Date of birth
Age Son’s Birth
Life Span
Date of Death
1556 *
3 sons
1906 **
* The same year as the Flood
** 350 years after the Flood  

Genesis 11
Date of birth
Age Son’s Birth
Life Span
Date of Death
Shem ***
*** Noah's son born 98 years before the Flood.

These ages are added up and then added to the time of Abraham's birth. Now there is some dispute about how old Terah (Abraham's Father) was when Abraham was born. Terah was ether 70 or 130 when Abraham was born but since the difference is only 60 years it is within the margin of error for other historical dates.

The resulting age of the Earth is 6000 to 6400 years. This is the bases of Usher's date for creation of 4004 B.C. He started with a 4 B.C. date for the birth of Christ.

The Annals The World by James Ussher
The classic historical work by Archbishop James Ussher. Translated into English.