There is NO scientists that can prove the planet has been covered with water. There is however absolute proof it never happened. The same way a desert has a consistant pattern of ripples from wind blowing over it. So should the planet have the same proof of massive drainage. Soil testing up the sides of the highest points of water saturation doesn't come close to covering the planet.
Saying that human foot prints may have been placed at the same time as a dinosaurs falls well short of explaining the 350million years they walked the earth prior to humans and the lack of mention in the 10 days of creation. The form of dating that you mentioned is not the scientific standard of dating. Radio carbon based dating is. It has a hit or miss of ( .1 )%. It's done with radiation. I can appreciate your skepticism. However, Carbon based dating is the scientific standard. You may feel more qualified to make decisions about the testing being flawed do to geologic activity than the rest of scientific community, Doctors,physicists,scientists,mathematicians and such. But when it comes to these issuse I choose to BELIEVE them.
Could someone step up and explain WHY the bible dates the earth and all life at ten thousand years old? DUDE to believe this you got to get out a flamethrower and just torch anything that even resembles scientific sense.
Your talking about "a side effect of space time"? Does this only happen with people or does it happen with roadkill opossums as well? Does the opossum have a conscious? How about bugs? Does it only happen to people because they have "souls". If there was an energy wouldn't this happen with most all electric devices? Refridgerators showing up in rooms that used to be kitchens? Holly shit that scares me! LOL
IMO: It's ok to be a God fearing person. I'm not trying to take this away from anybody here. Nor could I. You asked me If I believe? The answer is no.
LOL... I'm just grabbing for straws here but I'll step up. And concreteguy, there are many reputable scientists that not only support the idea of a deluge (flood) but insist that they have evidence to back it up as well and believe me, some of the data is pretty compelling. There is no absolute proof either way and to say so is stating an opinion as fact because both sides are still being debated. All I can say personally at this time is that I just don't know.
Anyway, here's what I know about dating.
Radioactive dating methods like you're talking about use things like uranium decaying into lead or potassium decaying into argon. The accuracy of any method of this sort depends on factors that are simply not predictable with accuracy.
1. The first assumption is that the argon or potassium present is the result of decay and not naturally occurring. But only 1% of the argon present is the result of decay.
2. The second assumption that I mentioned earlier is that the uranium or potassium has been there, in the rocks, in a
closed system. A closed system would be required for accurate dating. The problem I see there is that the rocks or bones could be subject to contamination, evaporation, and other geologic activity that would skew results and over enough time likely were.
3. A third assumption is made which is also the worst. It assumes that decay rates do not vary when in fact they do. Cosmic radiation, magnetic pole reversals, and supernovae from nearby stars. Any of these could reset atomic clocks.
Okay, I had to look some of that up but being a skeptic, I question these dating methods as well and I'm just your average lay person with a subscription to Scientific American and some personal interest. The carbon dating method you're talking about is the most unreliable of all in fact, has proven inaccurate beyond 30,000 years and the Geochron Laboratory refuses to use it beyond 3000 years. To get a grasp of how broad the inaccuracies can be you can look at lunar rocks brought back from the moon by Apollo dated from 2 million (not billion) to 28 billion years (the moon is generally assumed to be ~4.5 billion years old). That's a pretty big range.
Remember, eager to prove a theory, scientists consistently disregard measurements that might prove their theory wrong and accept and publish results that support the theory.
I'm not saying yes, no, or maybe to any of this. I'm just trying to merely point out that if you're going to cling on to anything, whether you put your faith in science or something other than science, you need to use your wits to decide what you want to believe. My method has been to always read what science has to offer including opposing points of view and judge for myself who has the best argument. Unfortunately, some subjects are so complicated and so involved that I don't have time to explore them thoroughly enough.
That's why threads like this usually degrade because this is where science and faith collide and people take it very personally when you start throwing monkey wrenches in everything they hold on to as fact. It's very difficult for someone to say, "Wow. I was wrong all along. Thanks for that info!"
.gif "IP Gear")
