Now that everyone has had a good laugh...Do any of you have ANY facts to support your position?
Also, whatever errors that may exist in Carbon dating etc. they certainly cannot be in the range of several million years.
Yes, that is certainly true! Carbon dating is for organic matter only, and organic matter is totally decayed at around ~40,000 give or take a decade...
You are thinking of radiometric dating. There are many forms of radiometric or radioisotope dating techniques including Potassium, Rubidium, Samarium, Lutetium, Rhenium and Thorium/Uranium tests. Many elements undergo radioactive decay as they age, producing other elements. If we measure the quantities of radioactive elements in a sample and compare them to the measure of the element into which they decay we can theoretically determine how much time has elapsed since the sample was formed or cooled from a molten state. The problem with this is the age result is just an interpretation, the actual scientific data are the isotope ratios, not elapsed years. To derive an age measurement from the test unprovable assumptions have to be made. These assumptions are the starting ratio of parent/daughter isotopes, that the rate of decay is constant, and that no parent or daughter material has been added or removed. There are countless examples of rocks of known origin being dated wrong! The Mt. St. Helens eruption alone gives us countless samples of basaltic lava formed in 1980 that are dated from 1 million to one and a half million years old. The evo answer? Their tests just are not that accurate with rock that young...That is a good answer. But the question is if radiometric dating is accurate. Instead they turn it, once again, as we can see in this very forum, into an attack against creationists. But the question is still not answered. If we have all these KNOWN samples that are being dated way out of the ballpark, why should we trust ANY of the tests? In fact, if you look at the results of ANY radiometric dating you will see wild, millions of years fluctuations on the SAME SAMPLE!
So the "intact organic matter" that you speak of means, to you, that the "supposedly millions of years old remnants" cannot possibly be that old? And you claim to be arguing scientific fact? Sorry, not buying it.
What are you not buying? We have found much organic matter where it should not be! This is a fact:
Please explain this? I am not ASKING you to buy anything, I want an explanation!
He probably thinks the Earth is flat.
Mick, I am very disappointed in you!
Is that really called for? I have presented a few facts, can you explain them? No. Instead you have to resort to personal attack. I really do not believe man EVER thought the earth was flat, I believe this to be an old wives tale. Certainly the Bible recognizes a round earth as do the ancient Greeks. You only have to look up in the sky to see round planets, a round sun, a round moon...You can watch the sun and moon and mars all travel through our sky with great precision day after day...You can stand out in a desert or in a ship out of sight of land and see the curvature of the earth with the naked eye.
Listen, you all keep resorting to faith based arguments. I am the one trying to get you to argue facts! I have not presented opinion, I have presented fact. There are red blood cells in dinosaur bones, explain it. I am not trying to sway you to my beliefs, I want YOU to show me why my beliefs are wrong. Why is it so crazy that the universe might only be a few thousand years old? Think about it, what do you have to prove it is any older? Radiometric dating? Ice core samples? Starlight? I can show where these MAY not be valid measurements. I also have MANY pieces of evidence that point to a young earth. Why can you not argue facts? Because you do not have any? Easier to just drink your beer and laugh at the nut?
I understand. But I actually have good reasons for what I believe, do you? Other than that was what they taught you in school? Have you ever demanded proof? You want proof to believe in God, why do you believe in evolution without any proof? If you have proof then present it.