By-Tor.com

But, in the creationist belief system, birds came before all dinosaurs except sea-going ones. Birds were created on day five, land animals on day six.

I raise chickens, and if I get sick, you'll be the first to know...

Besides, it's easy to contract airborne diseases in open-air-markets-with-little-or-no-hygiene scenarios....fear is a powerful emotion...

Will common sense and logic ever prevail? huh? what?

Common sense died. Hairy printed his obit.

THAT'S RIGHT!!! I read it...very true...very true

According to fossil records, Dinosaurs date back farther than flighted birds.................................volley.

Archeopteryx (sp) was the first with feathers I do believe.

I have problems with the dating methods used today. Why? Well, for one, when Mt. St. Helens blew up in 1980, some scientists decided to see what would happen if they sent some of the new rock that she laid down off to be tested for age. Testing showed those rocks that were documented as having just been "born" by volcano to be hundreds of thousands of years old.

Well, it has been cooking a while though.

I don't know.

awip2062 wrote:I have problems with the dating methods used today. Why? Well, for one, when Mt. St. Helens blew up in 1980, some scientists decided to see what would happen if they sent some of the new rock that she laid down off to be tested for age. Testing showed those rocks that were documented as having just been "born" by volcano to be hundreds of thousands of years old.

Steve Austin sent his rock samples to a lab that he knew couldn't give a reliable date for anything younger than 2,000,000 years.

There's a minimum and a maximum age for which any given dating method works. The rocks at Mt St Helens are too young for the method he used - and he knew it. He deliberately fabricated an invalid date.

slightly off topic but I wanted to share a pic I got sent from one of my nasa newsletters...sorry it's a wee bit big but I thought it was a really cool pic..

Activity at Cleveland Volcano, Aleutian Islands, Alaska

awesome pic schu....wonder if she's gonna full-bore erupt?

Devil's Advocate wrote:

awip2062 wrote:I have problems with the dating methods used today. Why? Well, for one, when Mt. St. Helens blew up in 1980, some scientists decided to see what would happen if they sent some of the new rock that she laid down off to be tested for age. Testing showed those rocks that were documented as having just been "born" by volcano to be hundreds of thousands of years old.

Steve Austin sent his rock samples to a lab that he knew couldn't give a reliable date for anything younger than 2,000,000 years.

I had wondered what the Six Million Dollar Man was up to these days...

D'oh!!!!!

SCHU!!! What a picture!!! I'm always in awe of the power of Mother Nature!

Devil's Advocate wrote: Steve Austin sent his rock samples to a lab that he knew couldn't give a reliable date for anything younger than 2,000,000 years.

There's a minimum and a maximum age for which any given dating method works. The rocks at Mt St Helens are too young for the method he used - and he knew it. He deliberately fabricated an invalid date.

According to the article on the page you linked us to...

"The primary assumption upon which K-Ar model-age dating is based assumes zero 40 Ar* in the mineral phases of a rock when it solidifies."

This shows that scientists expect no Argon in the rock when it is formed. The rock samples had just formed. This does not show that it is assumed the dating method cannot be used to show an age so young.

Also, Potassium Argon dating methods have shown basalt at Devils Postpile National Monument, California to be 0.94 ? 0.16 million years. Not dates that Doctor Austin would agree are possible as a creationist and also well below your minimum age.

Is it possible for a person who claims to be a Christian and a creationist to have any credibility in your eyes? So far, not one person who fits that description has been given any creedence by you.

YEC-ism is not credible in the light of the evidence.

What Austin claims to be an assumption of K-Ar dating methods is not necessarily so.

When you say:

This shows that scientists expect no Argon in the rock when it is formed.

you are mistaken. All you have is Austin's assertion; no-one has shown it to be true.

I could probably give you a few links from T.O ....