Age of mankind, dating, and the flood

Before you can convince someone with your "proofs" on anything you must have their agreement to consider what you will present within some discipline.If you restrict yourself to Euclidean Geometry, a proof of congruence between two different triangles becomes possible.But, is you are talking to someone in the discipline of Theology, where certain theories exist such as: a god can do anything, and, what might be called magic is the basis for miracles, then your science discipline is useless.It must be frustrating to be thoroughly convinced within the bounds of empirical science that you are right in your views, but then discover others do not believe in Cause/Effect which is an assumption they must agree upon before entering science. Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

I am shocked that you have pretended to be reading my posts close enough that you have suspended me a few times, and yet you say here my faith denies Science when I am CONSTANTLY stating that I agree with Science.Really,...You MUST not be reading me very closely.
I am a Physicists who sees Genesis confirmed by the Big Bang, the seven layers of the Geological Clock, the appearance of Pangea, and the Paleontology of 22 now extinct human species, etc.

True, but the point is that without a knowledge of geometry of any sort, or in the face of someone who is not willing to accept the first eight basic Axioms which can not and have never been proven themselves, your arguments are useless to you against their convictions.

How so...?Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

No.
I believe the dating procedure is grounded in good science.I do believe in regard to the Shroud of Turin, that the dating procedure was flawed.But my major point here is that when you can convince people theologically that they are wrong about their own dating, then they may be open to the guessimates of Science.I have consistently appealed to fundies to revisit the flawed estimates of medieval priests who came up with number 6000 years.
By examining not what these people mouth to us about the age of the Earth, but the method used by those who taught them this error of 6000 years, I believe we can make progress with the church in general.When they read that the 24 hour day did not exist until the solar clock was created by making the sun the time keeper of Earth time, it becomes clear they can not just add up the ages of the men listed in the Genesis genealogy.
They assumed that since the ages of the people mentioned in scripture is specified, it seemed possible that just adding up those numbers would give a date for the In the beginning.But, realization that the first seven "days" were NOT 24 hour durations screws this attempt up for them.

hhahaaaaa...Funny.
Actually, I double posted a message and since I couldn't eliminate it, I just addressed your statement under the other persons "reply" box.But an intelligent friendly self secure person like U, I realized, would still see the question referred to what you had said. Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Back to my original response that this kind of thread is an exercise in gang-ism, where the people who accept all the tenets of Science will try to amass enough similarly supporting science minded people against those who, like you who accept only an "alternative science" will defend.It was once fair, such that your gang was democratically supporting you, while the science gang was using ridicule and every debate trick in the book behind the supporting members on that side.What has happened in everyone of these religion forums today is a stand-off and total drop in discussion. Both side still have skeleton armies on the ready, but the general attendance is way down due to lack of interest since its a Stale Mate.I am willing to spoon feed both sides with the peace making argument that both Genesis and Science are correct.