That the age of the Universe was narrowed down to two extremes. We can tell for sure it has to be older than a certain date, and younger than another date.
Ahhh yes, 'cept there is evidence that you refuse to look at. So in actuality, the range is about 10,000 years to 4,500,000,000 years.
You are so wrong that even genetics can disprove that statement. You can literary call on a completely different field of science to disprove you. Like, the overwhelming, undeniable, provable points in geology aren't enough, you can see in biology that you are wrong. If you stick your fingers in your ears and scream any louder you may go deaf.
And if you could prove the age of the earth to be old, it would unravel not only Christianity but multiple different religions with a creation story around the world. Do you know why most creation evidence isn't peer reviewed? The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted. As I've said before, both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration a priori, not because of the evidence. Besides, who wants their bust scuplted. I have alot of chest hair. It probably wouldn't look good.
This is my favorite part. It is so full of blatant and proud ignorance that I can hardly decide where to begin. Seriously, I could write pages of information on that paragraph alone. For the sake of sanity, I shall stay succinct. You cannot unravel religion with facts. If they don't kill you for proposing them, they will deny the facts or change the church. A few hours in a library is more than enough time to disprove your religion.
The next point is where your ignorance truly shines. It's almost like it's a point of pride. You have a gross misunderstanding of how the scientific community operates. You think that it has a governing body that discriminates on religious ideas and puts them down before they can gain momentum. No one is keeping creationists from publishing. If you have a new idea or theory and the evidence to back it up, it will be peer reviewed. You think people are trying to keep creationists down because that's what you have been told. The truth is much different. The reason that creationists don't get published is because they have no science on their side. You cannot publish in a scientific arena with no science. I'm going to bold this next part because I think it's very important that you understand your hypocrisy.
The church has had 2000 + years of mainstream science where they disallowed scientific people to publish by killing them. Science came along and explained things better. Science is not trying to suppress religion, religion is trying to suppress science through any means necessary.You argue that the evidence is interpreted differently. Saying that a half a dozen different dating methods are wrong is not interpreting the data differently. Saying that geological proof in the fossil record is wrong is not interpreting the data differently. Saying genetics is wrong is not interpreting the data differently. Saying astronomical evidence is wrong is not interpreting the data differently. Saying tectonic science is wrong is not interpreting the data differently. You can't simply say that everything in science that contradicts you beliefs is wrong then in the very next breath say that you interpret the same data differently. You don't interpret it differently, you dismiss it outright.
Faith: "belief that is not based on proof."
Science: "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."
Do you cross your fingers behind your back when you liken these two things? Are you being purposefully obtuse? Do you truly think your argument gains something by saying science is synonymous to faith? You lack a child's understanding of what science is.
Moving on, you argue repeatedly that because the age of the earth cannot be determined exactly, it must not be accurate. I cannot count the exact number of molecules in the ocean. Must I disregard all other evidence for the ocean's existence and conclude because I cannot know exactly how many molecules it contains that it is false? This is a typical "all-or-nothing" creationist argument. It is not how science works.
Finally, how can anyone prove the age of the earth beyond a shadow of a doubt? Are you looking for the exact second it formed? I think that you would have trouble distinguishing when you would classify it as a planet, let alone earth. This is a feat that is likely to never be obtained, yet it does nothing to belittle the science of the age of the earth. I hope that one day you can understand why this is.