everything you just said makes total sense to me based on my understanding of chemistry and radiochemistry and physics

i think, though, that based on much, rich, geological and rocks used in construction especially in the area of Egypt suggest that there may be errors somewhere in the record of timelines for the patriarchs

in contrast to radiocarbon dating, rock-based age estimations are far less susceptible to assumptions especilaly where the question is about "how long can - for example - sandstone stand in the face of typical erosion from the environment"

this is a much easier question to answer because there is so much corroborating evidence, especially contemporaneous and nearby structures, and rock formations of similar composition that will experience weathering stresses and so forth

they are still a little circumstantial, but far less circumstantial than radiocarbon, and i just saw a good little presentation relating to this and the ancient, mostly granitic structures at the core of many of the egyptian statues and structures that strongly suggest that at least some of them were built around 12000 years ago, or earlier

the presenter also points out that regarding the environmental factors that could have played into it, that around 5000 years ago the weather changed a lot in the region, the river became less wet, and its course, and number of streams changed, so, this can reduce the period, but probably not by so much as a question about radiocarbon dating of a flood-dumped load of preserved things might, in the context of the poor evidence about the actual C14 rates of accumulation on the surface, versus the weathering that might be washing it away

it may not actually disagree, fundamentally, except on the one point of the "creation of man" question, and this is also why i strongly recommend you look at Jubilees and Jasher for some other extant and relatively prevalent accounts of the time of Adam, because Jasher is very explicit and detailed, the book is quite long, almost maybe as many words in it as the entire old testament, and it has some small differences, as i have mentioned, it does not accuse Rebecca of encouraging explicit deception from Jacob, she does not make him the furry wraps or anything, it sorta implies that Isaac was that past it that he didn't notice

the bedrock, the stuff formed from volcanoes, and fire, in general, are reliable sources of dating, in comparison to sedimentary and carbon dating

it may well be that the entire record of Genesis is pretty much accurate, except for that first part that claims that this was the beginning of our kind, but it also implies that people lived before this, and there was a LOT more history going back that has great relevance to understanding our current historical circumstance (like more details of the War in Heaven) 

 God's word is always accurate, even the first 11 chapters.  God doesn't lie. 

 It is pretty interesting in genetics.  Scientists (including secular scientists) have looked at mutations in the mitochondrial DNA that is passed down from mother to child through the egg.  Their calculations say the first female mitochondrial DNA was about 7,000 years ago (awfully close to the Bible's 6,000 but based on assumptions that might not be accurate).  They also looked at mutations in the Y chromosomes passed down from father to son.  These calculations came out to 4,500-5,000 years which is about the length of time since the flood.

Since the men on the ark were Noah and his 3 sons, you would expect all Y chromosomes to go back to Noah ~4,500 years ago.  Since the women on the ark were 4 unrelated women (Noah's wife and each of his son's wives), you would expect their mitochondrial DNA variation to trace back to Eve ~6,000 years ago.  Science matches the Bible.