The Bible intimates that life began 6000 years ago.
The fossil record seems to do a good job disproving that.
There are remains of life forms embedded deep within Earth's crust. The life was covered and over time uncovered. There is evidence that the process of covering and uncovering is much longer than 6000 years. 6000 years is a real short time. What the physical record shows needed much more that 6000 years imo. How is it explained by believers in the literally inspired Genesis account please?
In other words how are the remains of ancient life explained in harmony with the scriptural account? Does believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis require calling Earth researchers liars?
Prokaryotes 3,6 billion years ago I think and stromatolites a couple of hundred million years later. So that's a bit longer than 6.000 years. Even if you want fossils of complex animals, you'll find there are some that are 5 to 600 million years old.
Believers in literally inspired genesis can't explain it so they often try to present it as if dating methods are faulty. Typically they discard carbon dating as unreliable, which sometimes works with those that don't know that carbon dating is only usable to about 50-60.000 years ago. Or they give -often false- examples of animals that had their heads dated as older than their tales or so, not mentioning that scientists themselves often caution about the easy contamination of samples. They discard just about the whole science of geology and forget as a rule to mention that long before Darwin published his book the scientific community had allready accepted a very old earth, from hundreds of thousands to 20 million or so (Darwin read Lyell on his trip). They need some tricks of divine intervention to make fossils older than they are. They need the stars to be an illusion, light from the 'stars' being manipulated on it's way by...divine intervention. They have as yet no explanation for redshift, I think.
In short, they can't explain the facts away so the explanation is divine intervention made everything appear thousands of times older than it is.
Advocating a literal interpretation of genesis doesn't require all scientists to be liars but as they can't be intelligent researchers of reality, they must be some kind of ill-willed career opportunists or very naïve parrots. But then you can't call them scientists.
Mere believing that literal interpretation is something else. Most people who believe in such things have never really thought it through or have insufficient scientific education and knowledge to judge the arguments properly so they don't have to have such a negative view of science and scientists. Some think people with a scientific mind are just indoctrinated and know no better.
