I don't want to start a scientific debate on this, but doesn't this contradict the biological record we have of "early man"?
We don't have a biological record of early man. We have the remains of humans, but since their dating methods can make them 500 or 5 million years old, they aren't worth a lot. They usually use the area in which it was found to date, and they use the remains to date their area, so it is more about their assumptions.
Early man, which are not humans, are indistinguishable from apes. They use tiny fragments to paint a picture...largely from their imagination. A pig's tooth can become an entire pre-human society. Really.
In other words, isn't there absolutely no scientific evidence that the ages in the great old ages in the Bible should be taken literally?
There is no scientific evidence they aren't literal. Also, they have no real definition of "year" or real knowledge of what the earth was like then.
I know you mentioned that there would be no record. Is that because of the flood? But then how does one account for the record that does exist, which flatly contradicts both the idea that there is no record, and that "early man" or whatever lived longer than we do now? Not starting a debate, just curious how we should look at this. What does the Church say about the old ages in the Bible? Thanks.
Science isn't so cut and dry. When they find remains, they cannot get answers set in stone (even if it is literally set in stone). The flood, as I mentioned, was not just a lot of rain, but an entire restructuring of the earth. Also, real studies on the earth show we do not know that much. Is oil renewable? Why are there mass graveyards? Why do the layers showing the history of life alternate a lot?
There are the remains of ancient komodo dragons in Australia. The scientific explanation was that they evolved millions of years ago from smaller reptiles. They just found out where they came from...from other komodo dragons which are indistinguishable from modern ones. They have not changed at all in these "milliions" of years although their range has changed.
Same thing with almost every animal. Over 99% of all species are extinct. So most extinct animals are not represented in a living form, however, many living animals (living fossils) exist from every time period. These mass extinctions are entirely logical. That they are the "ancestors" of modern animals is stupid, unless of course they are actually that creature in which case they are indistinguishable. It is funny that these "living fossils" are usually recent discoveries. That is because they find the remains of an animal they do now know. They create a myth about it. Then...someone inconveniently finds it in some place they never looked. I have a feeling ever animal is a living fossil, they just haven't found that specific species in the remains of the fossils. Which makes sense, as 99% of them are extinct. There are many animals which we have never seen there.
Remember that. Most of this "science" is their assumptions and worship of their creation myth. They fit into into their mythology, and make exceptions as it goes on.