You forget that the flood has scientific evidence. The correct origin may not exist, but the Bible's roots can be traced much farter back than that of any other manuscript in existance, predating all other writings. It has yet to be proven wrong on ANY count, and so far stands by its promise as being the one true record of mankind's creation.
There is NO, NONE, ZERO evidence of ANY worldwide flood ever having occured in any geological strata on this planet.
As far as your short treastie on why the bible is perfect when in fact I posted a quote WITH the historical information of it's origin is frankly boggeling. Maybe you should re-read what I quoted again.
It MUST be flawed because the humans CAN NOT be more than 50,000 years old. The Earth, though it does a good job insulating heat from the sun has always been cooling down. The crust is gradually growing thicker. You can look with a satellite from space and detect the Earth as a "hot spot" giving off more heat than it receives. Therefore, if the Earth is cooling down, it must logically at one time have been hotter. I'm not saying it has always cooled at the same rate, but there is an obvious limit to how hot it could have been to sustain life (an entirely molten Earth could obviously not sustain life). Going back in time while gradually warming, the Earth would have been too hot for humans to live on in a matter of thousands, not millions of years. It would then be entirely molten long before the second billion. Whatever you're measuring, it's not time.
That is the biggest crock of bullsh!t I've read in quite a while and believe me, there is a lot posted on here. Your little anecdotal evidence is meaningless and has no basis in fact and shows a fundemental lack of education in both geology and science in general.
"Obviously, if half the C-14 decays in 5,730 years, and half more decays in another 5,730 years, by ten half-lives (57,300 years) there would be essentially no C-14 left. Thus, no one even considers using carbon dating for dates in this range. In theory, it might be useful to archaeology, but not to geology or paleontology. Furthermore, the assumptions on which it is based and the conditions which must be satisfied are questionable, and in practice, no one trusts it beyond about 3,000 or 4,000 years, and then only if it can be checked by some historical means."
Carbon dating ISN'T as reliable as even you think joohang
"It is only useful for once-living things which still contain carbon, like flesh or bone or wood. Rocks and fossils, consisting only of inorganic minerals, cannot be dated by this scheme."
It can't measure "stone" as you say at all. If all the preserved organic plant or animal has been replaced by minerals as old as the entire earth, would they not all date nearly the same?
A common tatic by those who wish to decieve on matters where people are not fully educated is to take a multi-disciplinarian science and attack a single brach of the science involved and point out that it doesn't support any of the conclusions. For example when discussing fossils, young earth creationists (or as they should be called liars) like to point out that radiometric carbon dating is only accurate to just under 100,000 years. What they fail to point out to the lay observer is that multi-disciplinarian science is involved and contains not only radiometric dating of non-carbon isotopes but geology, biology, archeaology and many other fields. This is often why "teams" investigate fossil digs.
