The two of these together cause all kinds of disjunction with biblical accounts, as "science" must have a much older planet, and an ice age instead of a flood.
I'll leave this topic alone, except to say that Christians have great resources in Creation Science which go to great lengths to prove the viability of the scriptural accounts, and also to note that the conflict between unbelivers (Darwin/Ice Age) and believers (Creation/Flood) is one of the two major impacts on biblical-period dating.
was born in 1581 to a well-to-do Anglo-Irish family living in the Pale of Dublin (that’s ‘pale’ as in the phrase ‘beyond the pale‘).
He was ordained in the Trinity College Chapel as a deacon in the Protestant Church of Ireland in 1602 and then rose through the ecclesiastical ranks as Chancellor of St Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin and Prebend of Finglas.
He became the wonderfully named Professor of Theological Controversies at Trinity College and a Bachelor of Divinity in 1607, and later Doctor of Divinity, then Vice-Chancellor in 1615 and vice-provost in 1616.
Very good dating is generally well supported directly from the pages of Scripture.
Generally accepted systematic dating of biblical period events has been established by Ussher in 1658, and was not broadly disputed by secular interests until 1878.
This would put the writing of the Law during the Kingdom age.