Father Seraphim Rose had some early church fathers' writings on the subject "Genesis, Creation and Early Man". Seems there have always been many "theories" about a longer age of the earth, since the Greeks believed that the world was extremely ancient, but this was not an issue for any church fathers, since whenever they wrote about the subject, they clearly accepted the Biblical account as accurate. Clement of Alexandria in Miscellanies 1, written before 215 a.d., gives u the date of creation of Adam at 5592 b.c., Julius Africanus, in Chronology, gives it at 5500 b.c. , and Hippolytus of Rome, give date of creation of Adam at 5500 b.c.
Obviously the dating of the earth did not need to be dealt with, by any early councils, since whenever they wrote about the topic, the church fathers rejected the Greek long age theory. Since I had assumed that radiometric dating dogmatically gave us a much longer age, years ago I had accepted a modern protestant interpretation of Holy Scripture to have found a way to override the readings of scriptures with our modern findings, by interpreting the Bible within a "gap theory", therefore, throwing out the "young age" faith of the scriptures in favor of a more "modern" view. I assumed anyone who accepted a young age theory must be a hillbilly who doesn't know science and had not had all the training I had in science and must be simply pitied for their "simplicity". As an Orthodox, I'm in a much tougher position now.
When I completed a minor degree in Physics and Computer Engineering, after happy days of receiving 4.0 in my calculus 6 course and passing calculus based physics courses, I found in the archives of our library, several scientists from top universities who proposed that the infallibility of radiometric dating methodologies is a modern myth taught to many of our scientists without providing the exceptions. Shocked me to hear scientists say such things since it seemed beyond the possibility of modern mind to believe there were any exceptions to what my professors had taught me. I remember one of the authors was a phd professor from Purdue University who mathematically calculated the age of the earth based upon half-life of certain elements, and he concluded it was impossible for the earth to be more than 10,000 years old. The math was not that hard to understand and in full agreement with what I had been taught in my classes mathematically and physically, but when I went to ask my some of my professors about the logical conclusions of these findings, they often seem so aggressively against even looking at the science or math behind the topic, except for our senior biology professor, who had read the same data and told me he was now presenting both sides to his students and allowing them to decide based on the facts of science whether dogma can be reached on either side. I am against a closed mind, since many scientists around Copernicus and Galileo's days, also thought those scientists had to be out of their mind to reject what "all" scientists had accepted in the west already. Being open minded, I am also aware that I am not all knowing and may easily be shown a different way to understand the universe than I do. Just thank God, we don't have too many flat earth scientists today though. Since someone here mentioned concerns about radiometric dating, here is a link to 30-40 technical and semitechnical articles on the subject that you might find possible different conclusions from the scientific facts: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp
A famous protestant astronomer by the name of Hugh Ross did write a book promoting a long age theory once again, but then biochemist phd Jonathan Sarfati, from Australia, wrote a detailed counter argument in his book "Refuting Compromise", showing Hugh Ross' incredible misquote of so many sources that it is hard for one who reads the accounts, to accept the Ross' account as anything but imaginative attempt to rewrite history based on presuppositions that guided him to only see what he wanted to see, even if it meant proof testing several historical documents out of context. The scientific data in the book is logical, but hard to grasp, if one has a solid bias against the data. Most importantly, sometimes harsh criticism on either side can be ugly and almost permanently judgemental apart from Christ's Love and the humble example of our church fathers.
Since obviously scientific research and documented findings back both sides of the argument scientifically, the "infallibility" of the conclusions as taught to many of our students and our professors, are obviously in question by many scientists. Not sure why any scientist could be dogmatic about their position, knowing that science is always in discovery mode and what we know as science today can easily be proven wrong tomorrow. Lately, I have read that the attacks have been much harsher. Several of these professors were forced out of their positions and others were denied tenure, just because they held to a different scientific finding. I hope we can all keep an open mind to empirical science and not throw out findings that agree with our church fathers and the reading of the Holy Scriptures too quickly. A great resource on the science side can be found at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
Either way, I must remember always that "Knowledge puffs up, but Love builds up" St. Paul to the Corinthian church, 1 cor. 13. What would it matter if I won the argument, but lost the soul. With gentleness and love, may we all help one another grow in Grace and Knowledge of our LORD Jesus Christ
As one on the way to becoming baptized and Chrismated within Orthodoxy, I am not sure if I can discount church fathers as wrong and not accept this part of the scriptures that address creation's timing. Some obviously have and I am just hopeful that their exposure to the science on both sides have been limited to dogmatism by many scientists on one side of the timing issue and this issue not to have been "canonized" by a few honorable and humble priests yet?