Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

The evidence for floods is obvious. There is no justification for extrapolating many floods into one Flood.

They weren't. There is nothing in the Bible or reality to suggest that they were.

Again, you can not use speculations about what might happen in the future as evidence that something happened in the past. On the contrary, we know it didn't. Separation of the continents and building of the existing mountains happened long before the 6000 years ago that the earth was supposedly "created".

You're missing the point. If most of the layers were deposited by the flood, then the iridium should be distributed among all of the Flood layers. It isn't.

Reality counts, whether you understand it or not.

Your opinions are of zero import. No creationism in schools, remember? Your opinions have already lost the battle.

You don't seem to know much about creationism either. Most creationists claim that most of the geological record was laid down during the Flood. That's how they explain the fossils.Are you suggesting that only the KT layer was laid down by the Flood? Not at all. For example, we can see how long it takes the ash from a volcano to circulate around the earth. It isn't hard at all to imagine the pulverized iridium from a meteorite behaving in a similar way.

Strictly speaking, the Ark was intended specifically to prevent any extinctions from happening.

There is no such thing as "created kinds" in the Bible. Genesis 6:20 specifically mentions different kinds of cattle. If there was only one "created kind" that included cattle, there would have been no need for different kinds of cattle on the ark. God did - "every living thing of all flesh" (Genesis 6:19)But this thread is for you to show your ignorance of dating methods. You can show your ignorance of the Bible in another thread.

Oh, it certainly is. You haven't grasped the whole concept of this thread: It doesn't matter if you can disprove one dating method or even ten dating methods. There are dozens of dating methods, each depending on different assumptions, different physical principles - and they all produce the same dates. That's like reading a dozen books and they all tell you that Paris is the capital of France.You could hypothetically prove that one or two of the methods were wrong but that would have no effect on the other methods.But, if course, you have failed miserably to understand any of the methods, so your attempts to disprove them are meaningless.

You have completely missed the point of this thread.Even if you could successfully challenge one or two of the dating methods - and you can't - that accomplishes nothing. The thread is about the correlation of ALL of the dating methods: ALL of the dating methods give the same answers.Even if you could discredit each and every one of the dating methods - and you have failed miserably to even scratch the surface on ANY of them - but even if you could discredit ALL of them individually, you'd still have to produce a cogent reason for them all being wrong in exactly the same way.It's like five hundred people trying to go from New York to Los Angeles by five hundred different routes and every single one of them winding up in Pensacola by mistake. You creationists are fond of complaining about the odds against abiogenesis and evolution; try calculating the odds on that one.

That's like saying, "Prove there are no unicorns."You have it backwards. If you make a positive claim - e.g. trees grew fast - then YOU are the one who has to provide evidence. You've already ignored a lot to get to your current position.

And that is the reality until you can show evidence that it was otherwise. That is not the default position. Historically, there have been many flood stories which do not agree with each other. You can not just pick one as the "default".

And they are supported six ways from Sunday. Have you read this thread at all? If not, you're just speaking from a position of ignorance. That's the problem. It is not open to correction. Its mistakes can never be fixed.

And yet you can't explain away the correlations. Because "ideas" and/or beliefs do not address the correlations.