Have you heard that the earth is older than the Bible says, and scientists can prove it with ice cores drilled from Greenland and the Antarctic?
I’ve heard that too, but it appears that their proof is grounded in multiple assumptions.
Although uniformitarian scientists would acknowledge that their flow models implicitly assume an old earth, they would argue that this assumption is justified, partly because the ages assigned to the ice cores agree with the expectations of a popular theory for ice ages called the astronomical or Milankovitch theory
Because secular scientists assume the solar system is billions of years old, they believe they are free to extrapolate these motions backward hundreds of thousands of years into the supposed “prehistoric” past.
Although the astronomical theory is currently popular, it is actually a theory from the 1800s, has a number of serious problems, and was previously rejected by meteorologists long ago.
One of the many problems for those who would reject the Bible’s authority is that the depth of ice packs for Greenland and Antarctica are easily explained within a Biblical timeframe.
Even if one grants the assumption that average high-latitude snowfall rates have been roughly constant throughout time, the Greenland ice sheet would need (in the absence of melting) only about 5,000 years to form, and the Antarctic ice sheets would require only about 10,200 years.1 Although these numbers are greater than the roughly 4,500 years since the Flood, they are easily compatible with the biblical model that predicts much higher snowfall rates during the post-Flood Ice Age.
There’s no reason to reject Biblical authority in favor of assumptions, because you know what they say about assumptions?