Everyone should read Fernand Crombette's "If the World Only Knew."

That will set you straight and it has the timeline from Adam to present.

Is there an English edition?  Looks like a great book.

Thanks Lad!

I was willing to discuss radiometric dating, but I guess nobody wants to.

I responded to it in an earlier post in this thread and you responded to my response.  I hope you can get Sungenis' book Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church.  He spends many pages on the topic as well as addressing various other very problematic methods of dating the age of the Earth.  If you don't like Sungenis you can find much of the same material refuting these dating methods on the Internet.

I do hope you don't just just brush aside those who do not agree with you with insufficient arguments, and fail to consider all the evidence.

And, of course, visa versa!

Good article here: http://kolbecenter.org/question-of-time/
I have pasted only the last part of it since it is rather lengthy.
The evidence can be summarized as follows:

• Radiometric dating, while supportive of old age, is contradicted by other age evidences such as preservation of soft tissue and the presence of Carbon-14, and is regarded by its own proponents as subordinate to fossil assemblages for marking the divisions of the Geologic Time Scale.
• Evidence of geologic catastrophism rebuts gradualism and reduces the ability of geologists to extrapolate currently observed processes into the past.
• The quantity and preservation of fossils are difficult to explain in a gradualistic scenario.
• The existence of biologic discontinuities and deleterious mutations are problematic for Darwinian hypotheses of descent through genetic mutation.

I conclude that the age claims of conventional geology do not pass the burden of proof of reasonable doubt. If it were a crime to be as old as geologists claim, then the earth should be declared, “Not guilty.”
However, the failure of the old age hypothesis to meet the reasonable doubt standard does not automatically translate into proof that the earth is young. Both old age and young age proponents have marshaled many arguments for their positions using the evidences of geology, and those who wish to investigate the technical aspects of the issue are encouraged to consult the resources given at the end of this paper. What can be safely stated, however, is that that reason alone cannot give a conclusive age for the earth.
The failure of old age evidences to meet the reasonable doubt standard does show that the standard of proof has not been met by those who would challenge the literal and obvious sense of Genesis 1-11 as interpreted by all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and by the Popes and Councils in their authoritative teaching.^[1]
In addition, while geology cannot conclusively establish the earth’s age, evidences of geologic catastrophism appear to corroborate the worldwide flood described in Genesis.  Furthermore, the existence of genetic discontinuities between species and the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record support the Genesis account of a one-time creation of biologic kinds, with built-in but limited potential for variation.
Apart from any evidence from the natural sciences, there are sound theological reasons to uphold the traditional interpretation of Genesis as true history:
1. The historical character of Genesis testifies against an old age for the earth. The whole Genesis account from Adam to Abraham is a coherent historical narrative, which is taken up in the New Testament when Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam. If we reject the historicity of Genesis before Abraham, then we are put in the position of having real people be the descendants of metaphorical ones. Most importantly of all, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself always referred to the accounts of persons and events in Genesis 1-11 as true history.
2. A strictly metaphorical understanding of Genesis did not exist before the development of the theories of evolution over long geological ages. As Father Victor Warkulwiz docuмents in his book, The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church interpreted Genesis as authentic history up until the 19^th century, and it was not new theological insight that produced the modern allegorical interpretation, but rather the desire of theologians to accommodate Scripture to the emerging theories of old age and evolution.^[59]
3. Even taken strictly metaphorically, Genesis does not adapt well to theories of evolution over long ages of geological time. While Genesis does reflect the sophisticated concept that light existed before the sun and the moon, the rest of the order of creation does not match the uniformitarian scenario. Vegetation preceded the creation of the sun and moon, sea creatures and birds were created before animals and men, and all creatures were initially vegetarian, since animal death was the result of the fall.^[2]
4. One cannot reject the supposedly unscientific events of the Old Testament without casting doubt upon the similarly unscientific events of the New Testament. Nothing could be less scientific than the idea that a man was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, yet that is what Christians are required to believe. If the supernatural events of the New Testament are true history, then it is not unreasonable to believe that the supernatural events of Genesis could be true history as well.
5. If the evolutionary interpretation of the geological column is correct, God allowed hundreds of millions of years of death, disease, genetic defects and deformities before the Original sin of Adam. But this is not the all-wise, all-loving and all-powerful God who is revealed in Jesus Christ and in the Bible, as understood by all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.  The God of the Bible and Catholic Tradition created a perfectly harmonious universe for mankind, devoid of any kind of defect or deformity.  In this account, animal and human death, disease, and genetic defects and deformities are the consequence of sin-and the fossil record of death, disease, and deformity is primarily a testament to Noah’s Flood: God’s merciful judgment, which preserved a faithful remnant from a world that had become almost totally corrupt.
By His very nature, God was able to create the world in any manner He desired, including that described literally in Genesis. In addition, it would be consistent with His nature as a loving and caring Father to reveal a true account of creation, so that His children would be able to reconcile the existence of physical and moral evils with faith in His perfect wisdom, goodness, and love.
I conclude that the revelation of faith and the witness of reason both provide powerful support for the view that Genesis 1-11 should be interpreted not as allegory, but as true history.
 

As we know, when popes were convinced science had proven biblical geocentrism false, they made this same science (which we now know to be pseudo-science) the new exegete of Genesis. This contradicted St Thomas who said theology was the queen of all sciences, the only science with autonomy over all others. Today, popes speak of the 'autonomy of science.'

The six days of creation are now 13.5 billions of years of evolution. Why then continue to celebrate the seventh day as literal, that is Sunday, a day that occurs every seventh day or week. How convenient, a day for Mass and alms collection, but not for Genesis when the Lord 'rested.'. When you think of it, it is a bit hypocritical.

Dr Walter Libby, who won a Nobel Prize for his discovery of the Carbon-14 dating method, and who thought his discovery would reveal ‘prehistoric’ times, never found any human artefact older than 5,000 years.

‘“You read statements in books that such or such a society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old,” he commented, “but we learn rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is about the first dynasty of Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established.”’ ---- A. J. White, Radio-Carbon Dating, Cardiff, Wales, 1955, p.10.

The second paragraph is a quote, which is reasonably well known. Is the first paragraph your interpretation of the quote?
Libby, a scientist and not a historian, thought he could calibrate the method with samples from historically established dates. But it turned out 1950s historians didn't agree on dates of things before the first dynasty of Egypt with enough precision for such samples to be of use. Radiocarbon dating ended up providing more precise dates, especially as the technique improved.