>My source was already plainly spelled out friend. To wit: Sir Isaac Newton himself.
You never gave a source to show that there were no scholars to ever calculate the age of the earth before Newton.
For instance, what about Sir James Ussher, who came before Newton, who was a scholar which made a concerted effort at answering this question (not to mention many ancient church writers) thus not making Isaac Newton the "first" to attempt this, as you claimed above? I can repeat this question if it is not answered below.
>which bit of what you're claiming in your post was something that wasn't you simply 'repeating something someone told you'?
The problem lies in the repeating of the tale without performing any attempt to verify the facts from any sources. In this case, your claiming that no one had ever attempted to date the earth before. That is, unless you want to define your own unique class of people called "scholars" which excludes everyone before him, simply for the purpose of making your misleading point that he was the first.
>of any highly-legitimate source of reliability is both the book of scripture, and the 'book' of nature.
The popular belief called "evolution" of the earth, etc, may be popular. But the belief is not really scientific as much as it is built on metaphysical axioms. Furthermore, this popular belief, which I believe you made a direct reference to above, clashes with the order of creation given in the first six days of Genesis. In the modernist theory that you are (it seems) going on, we didn't have herbs appear before the sun/moon appeared in the sky, and we didn't have all birds appear on the fifth day while all land creatures only appearing on the sixth day. The account given by Genesis actually conflicts with the popular theories of abiogenesis and evolution from common ancestry in said ways. It also conflicts with the statements made there that every kind reproduces after itself; not after each other, or one kind giving rise to many. Those who truly believe the Bible and don't reduce all of God's word entirely to one's own personal allegory have to reckon with this. So don't pretend like the Genesis account needs to bend to modern popular ideas with an air of pomp to them.
Christ Himself, as recorded in the New Testament, refers to the events covered in the book of Genesis literally as factual events. By laying aside all the testimony of God like this, someone, who really just wants to believe in "popular" ideologies no matter what they are – and evolution (as the whole thing is commonly referred to) is popular with the lifestyle and ideology of today – has shown that they disagree with God's sacred account. They've shown their real predisposition, which is toward the world and the things that are of this world as opposed to accepting the true sayings of God. It shows that someone values prestige from the world more than they do the glory of God.
What's even worse is when some are actually willing to claim to be followers of the Bible when really they reject it by trying to change it: and even try to publically mislead others about what it actually says to make matters even further worse still, as you have done here.