Christians and Jews, when calculating the age of the world, often rely on two lines of argumentation that are then compared with traditional geological-radiometric methods.

Discrepancies in Age Calculations: Biblical Chronology versus Geologic

Christians and Jews, when calculating the age of the world, often rely on two lines of argumentation that are then compared with traditional geological-radiometric methods.

On one hand, they rely on the literal reading of sacred texts and genealogical data, which allow for relatively short timelines for the existence of the world. For example, one of the sources states:
"Age of the planet. Until the mid-19th century, the world was considered to have been created in six days about 7,500 years ago in accordance with the Bible. But isotope dating data show a billion-year age of the planet: ... Let us show that such a calculation is valid only if the Earth appeared by itself and was not created by God." (source: link txt)

Another argument is based on estimating the time span of human existence, where, using biblical data, it is claimed that human history counts around 16,000 years:
"...then we can adopt Glagolev's calculation, i.e. accept that, according to biblical data, humanity existed on earth before the birth of the Savior for about 16,000 years." (source: link txt)

On the other hand, critics of traditional scientific calculations point to the dependence of radiometric and stratigraphic dating methods on initial assumptions. For example, attention is drawn to the fact that many methods assume a zero initial amount of radioactive elements or isotopes, which may be incorrect if one believes that the Earth was created completely and with its original, unmixed substance. One of the sources notes:
"In classical geology, it was assumed that the Earth was once a hot sphere, during the cooling of which crystallization of uranium minerals occurred in the Earth's crust, ... But if the Earth was created a few thousand years ago and was not a fiery sphere, then the assumption of the purity of the initial radioactive substances falls away. Therefore, it is impossible by radioisotopic methods to prove that the planet has existed for billions of years." (source: link txt)

In addition, issues are raised regarding the interpretation of isotopic data, considering, for example, the presence of an initial amount of decaying nuclei or possible changes in fundamental constants. Thus:
"The very low content of helium in the Earth's atmosphere, which forms as a result of alpha decay of long-lived nuclear chronometers, also indicates that the estimated age of the Earth of several billion years is clearly overestimated. And while the question about the real age of large cosmic objects... remains within the framework of nuclear physics and the known methods of nuclear chronometry..." (source: link txt)

Arguments based on calculations of sediment accumulation and erosion processes are also presented. For instance, an analysis of the ratio of salt concentrations carried by rivers to the oceans indicates that even assuming primordial freshwater conditions, sediment accumulation could have filled all the oceans in tens or hundreds of millions of years, which contradicts traditional evolutionist estimates:
"The ratio of salt concentrations carried by rivers into the oceans, even assuming completely freshwater conditions in the primordial ocean, indicates an age of the world measured in thousands, not billions, of years. Sediment transport by rivers would have filled all the oceans in 30 million years. Erosion processes... would have completely eroded the continents to sea level in a few million years." (source: link txt)

The assessment of the credibility of these arguments comes down to analyzing the initial assumptions of each method. Proponents of biblical chronology argue that if one believes the sacred texts and takes into account the possibility of an initial presence of already-formed radioactive elements, standard geological-chronological methods may give inflated estimates. Nevertheless, for an objective evaluation, it is necessary to carefully verify the correctness of the assumptions underlying each calculation, bearing in mind that many modern methods are based on experimentally confirmed theories and data, even if their interpretation may be contentious from a religious perspective.

Thus, the discrepancies in the calculations of the age of the world between the Christian and Jewish approaches and traditional scientific methods are based on fundamentally different initial assumptions: some derive from a literal reading of sacred texts and genealogical sequences, while others are based on physical and geological processes measured by modern methods. The credibility of each approach can be assessed through a detailed analysis of the underlying assumptions, experimental data, and their consistency with observed phenomena.