Breaking News from Genesis 1:9

[james bond]

The evidence was presented years ago. Do I have to post my source again?

2007
Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood

Here's something from 1992 and different source:
Startling evidence for Noahs Flood - creation.com

I think the creation scientists are more honest as they keep up their articles while atheist scientists end up hiding their articles when it goes against evolution.

I think I have it explained this better than you. You have no explanation to explain a waterworld nor how it screws up Darwin's timeline. What really is telling is you do not provide dates; it goes to show you do not know your own evolution.

To the contrary, it's strange how Satan's Antibible of evolution goes against something God started to write around 1445 BC.

Your sources cherry-pick what supports the Flood and ignore any and all contrary evidence. For example, how could a single flood event create hundreds or thousands of individual rock layers?

Do you have an example of atheist scientists hiding their articles when it goes against evolution?

What is it about a waterworld that requires an explanation in view of evolution? What dates are you looking for?

The forensic evidence is better for a global flood than your cherry picked forensic fossil evidence to fit evolution. Your fossil evidence is supposed to be the mountain of facts of evolution. One of its largest weaknesses is no transitional fossils. The fossil record itself is mostly marine fossils. These were found on mountain tops all over the world. The individual rocks layers are due to the catastrophism that was explained in the rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas. The scientific method of Guy Berthault has led to many experiments showing how sedimentary layering works. It doesn't take millions of years. There can be no experiment for millions of years.

Try to find fine tuning evidence. These were discovered by atheist scientists trying to explain the big bang. We had the chicken come before the egg finding in 2017. Evolutionists want to keep claiming the egg came first. It follows the cell coming first. The scientific finding for chicken coming before the egg is more difficult to find. Many science articles came out against evolution from 2007 - 2011 time period such as common ancestry was not common. DNA similarity didn't necessarily mean same species. Junk DNA doesn't mean its junk DNA. Those are difficult to find now.

I already provided Darwin's timeline. The 3.2 B years old waterworld would have screwed up the cell formation and development.

There are large numbers of transitional fossils.

CC200: Transitional fossils


Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Can you provide data from a Christian ministry that has been submitted for peer review that refutes the above?

First, you could not rebut anything that I posted, so it means you lost, lost, lost. I am the CHAMPION once again.

Instead, you insult me with more evolutionism which does not hold WATER. The topic is waterworld and it is clear you could not explain how Darwinism survives in a waterworld. Just much more straw men in order to show your lack of any credible answer.

Well actually, I did rebut your strident, hand-wringing appeals to ID'iot creationist (religious) doctrine with facts. You can deny the facts all you wish but you obviously can't "rebut" them.

No need to feel insulted by evolutionism. You have already discovered that hiding behind religionism is not going to shield you from the facts. Your emotional outbursts aren't helpful.

Drowning in your waterworld of religious extremism? Reason and rationality is the lifesaver.

First, you did not address the topic of the thread. Second, all you was link something with no explanation in your own words. It does not tell me that you understood the material and can provide your own argument in the future. Thus, in that sense I won the argument for waterworld but in overall terms you and another lost something more precious and that was another chance to begin salvation. What is telling to me is that it is the exact same sin that Adam and Eve did. You think that it had to do with eating a fruit. That is the ultimate loss.

Maybe waterworld or the global flood claimed two more victims. Tsk.

 

[Hollie]

Your sources cherry-pick what supports the Flood and ignore any and all contrary evidence. For example, how could a single flood event create hundreds or thousands of individual rock layers?

Do you have an example of atheist scientists hiding their articles when it goes against evolution?

What is it about a waterworld that requires an explanation in view of evolution? What dates are you looking for?

The forensic evidence is better for a global flood than your cherry picked forensic fossil evidence to fit evolution. Your fossil evidence is supposed to be the mountain of facts of evolution. One of its largest weaknesses is no transitional fossils. The fossil record itself is mostly marine fossils. These were found on mountain tops all over the world. The individual rocks layers are due to the catastrophism that was explained in the rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas. The scientific method of Guy Berthault has led to many experiments showing how sedimentary layering works. It doesn't take millions of years. There can be no experiment for millions of years.

Try to find fine tuning evidence. These were discovered by atheist scientists trying to explain the big bang. We had the chicken come before the egg finding in 2017. Evolutionists want to keep claiming the egg came first. It follows the cell coming first. The scientific finding for chicken coming before the egg is more difficult to find. Many science articles came out against evolution from 2007 - 2011 time period such as common ancestry was not common. DNA similarity didn't necessarily mean same species. Junk DNA doesn't mean its junk DNA. Those are difficult to find now.

I already provided Darwin's timeline. The 3.2 B years old waterworld would have screwed up the cell formation and development.

There are large numbers of transitional fossils.

CC200: Transitional fossils


Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Can you provide data from a Christian ministry that has been submitted for peer review that refutes the above?

First, you could not rebut anything that I posted, so it means you lost, lost, lost. I am the CHAMPION once again.

Instead, you insult me with more evolutionism which does not hold WATER. The topic is waterworld and it is clear you could not explain how Darwinism survives in a waterworld. Just much more straw men in order to show your lack of any credible answer.

Well actually, I did rebut your strident, hand-wringing appeals to ID'iot creationist (religious) doctrine with facts. You can deny the facts all you wish but you obviously can't "rebut" them.

No need to feel insulted by evolutionism. You have already discovered that hiding behind religionism is not going to shield you from the facts. Your emotional outbursts aren't helpful.

Drowning in your waterworld of religious extremism? Reason and rationality is the lifesaver.

First, you did not address the topic of the thread. Second, all you was link something with no explanation in your own words. It does not tell me that you understood the material and can provide your own argument in the future. Thus, in that sense I won the argument for waterworld but in overall terms you and another lost something more precious and that was another chance to begin salvation. What is telling to me is that it is the exact same sin that Adam and Eve did. You think that it had to do with eating a fruit. That is the ultimate loss.

Maybe waterworld or the global flood claimed two more victims. Tsk.

First, I addressed your comments which were false and misleading. Your lack of a science vocabulary is not my issue to address.

Your need to declare yourself some kind of "winner" when you have failed to refute my posts is a pattern of behavior you hide behind.

 

[james bond]

First, I addressed your comments which were false and misleading. Your lack of a science vocabulary is not my issue to address.

Your need to declare yourself some kind of "winner" when you have failed to refute my posts is a pattern of behavior you hide behind

It doesn't matter that much anymore Hollie as I am done with atheists. All they want to do is convince you of their atheism and false science of evolutionism. Declaring myself a winner is just a politically correct way of not calling out the opposite. By turning over a new leaf, I can be more nicer instead of having to bring out St. George's sword or something.

ETA: Here is another way to look at it. Wouldn't it be more productive for you and alang1216 to learn from fellow atheists and evolutionists about evolutionism? It would be the same way with me. I would get more out learning about the Bible from others interested in the Bible. It's not like I know what I need to know.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Earth may have been a waterworld covered by global ocean 3.2 billion years ago, study suggests.

Science always ends up proving what was written thousands of years ago is true.

The pesky problem with that is that if you are trying to equate that with the fable of the ARK in the bible, it won't work. Not only were humans not around 3.2 billion years ago, neither were dinosaurs.

There was no 3.2 billion years ago and how can Earth have that much water back then? No one can prove it. What this shows is evidence of a global flood in 2458 BC and science backs up the Bible once again.

Per various independent scientific measurements, 3.2 billion years ago, the earth was already 1.34 billion years old. As such, the earth is 4.54 billion years old. I'll believe the various scientific studies, versus the Dead Sea Scrolls that were written by a primitive superstitious people, around the 3rd Century BCE.

 

[Hollie]

First, I addressed your comments which were false and misleading. Your lack of a science vocabulary is not my issue to address.

Your need to declare yourself some kind of "winner" when you have failed to refute my posts is a pattern of behavior you hide behind

It doesn't matter that much anymore Hollie as I am done with atheists. All they want to do is convince you of their atheism and false science of evolutionism. Declaring myself a winner is just a politically correct way of not calling out the opposite. By turning over a new leaf, I can be more nicer instead of having to bring out St. George's sword or something.

Might I suggest you abandon the "evilutionism" slogans? When you ruthlessly cut and paste from creation ministries, you tend to further weaken your attempt at argument.

When evil atheists counter your false claims with links to science journals / websites, you do youself no favors by retreating to emotional outbursts.

I don't know what evolutionism is. I understand you use the term as a slur toward science and learning but your childish, emotional outbursts are time wasting.

 

[Thunk]

One thing I never figured out...what exactly was the "firmament" that divided the waters below from the waters above?

 

[james bond]

Per various independent scientific measurements, 3.2 billion years ago, the earth was already 1.34 billion years old. As such, the earth is 4.54 billion years old. I'll believe the various scientific studies, versus the Dead Sea Scrolls that were written by a primitive superstitious people, around the 3rd Century BCE.

So you can do math, but it still doesn't explain how waterworld and Darwin's timeline can coexist. His single cell gets destroyed. BTW, he was given the single cell so it doesn't really count in my book.

Darwin's timeline:
Years
ago ............................................................................................. Event
130,000 Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
4 million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
65 million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
130 million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
225 million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
248 million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
250 million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
360 million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
420 million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
450 million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
500 million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
555 million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like Wiwaxia.
3.5 billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
3.8 billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
4.6 billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.

 

[james bond]

First, I addressed your comments which were false and misleading. Your lack of a science vocabulary is not my issue to address.

Your need to declare yourself some kind of "winner" when you have failed to refute my posts is a pattern of behavior you hide behind

It doesn't matter that much anymore Hollie as I am done with atheists. All they want to do is convince you of their atheism and false science of evolutionism. Declaring myself a winner is just a politically correct way of not calling out the opposite. By turning over a new leaf, I can be more nicer instead of having to bring out St. George's sword or something.

Might I suggest you abandon the "evilutionism" slogans? When you ruthlessly cut and paste from creation ministries, you tend to further weaken your attempt at argument.

When evil atheists counter your false claims with links to science journals / websites, you do youself no favors by retreating to emotional outbursts.

Where do I say it's evilutionism? Was it a typo? That's the good way to describe the Antibible tho. Is using Antibible okay since evolution contradicts everything stated in the Bible? I doubt it's me with the emotional outbursts and you were the one who keeps getting upset and have to reply to my posts.

 

[james bond]

One thing I never figured out...what exactly was the "firmament" that divided the waters below from the waters above?

It means the sky.

What Does the Bible Say About Firmament?

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

No. I don't own a rock, or a front planter.

Do you believe a snake talked even once in history?

I'm talking about the s-word. You'd have a point if I was talking about the c-word.

View attachment 310931

Stormy told the entire world about that little mushroom of Don's that he payed her to service.

I see you think about it.

As are you, defensively.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Do you believe time is constant?

That my be your best argument. Does the Bible indicate anywhere where time is relative?

Not that I know of. It’s not likely that has anything to do with our salvation.

I admit there are things in the world that defy explanation. I discount nothing.

And to the question of the age of the earth, investigate geology. Look at every cut and the layers from all over the world.

Precise and distinct layers with a key feature always missing - no rivers or streams are seen in any layering. Odds are you’d see a stream cut somewhere.
View attachment 310772 View attachment 310773 View attachment 310774
BTW - the top photo is layers formed over just a 2 month period. Mt St Helens. It could pass off as being millions of years old.

Of course you could always ask a geologist.

That hasn't worked out well for the climate change denialists.

 

[Thunk]

One thing I never figured out...what exactly was the "firmament" that divided the waters below from the waters above?

It means the sky.

What Does the Bible Say About Firmament?

So there are waters above the sky? That doesn't work in context.

 

[Andylusion]

Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?

Of course not. We believe that the claims about age, are false. There are number of reasons for this conclusion.

For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year. If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.

Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.

Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.

Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.

Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.

Take for example radio dating.... the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap. Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating. Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.

Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.

The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method. You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with. You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin. You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.

In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.

With that problem in mind:
Radio-Dating in Rubble

The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock. The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.

There is just one problem. The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens. The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.

Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years, then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.

So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.

 

[james bond]

One thing I never figured out...what exactly was the "firmament" that divided the waters below from the waters above?

It means the sky.

What Does the Bible Say About Firmament?

So there are waters above the sky? That doesn't work in context.

What context are you referring to?

It could have referred to the clouds. Or the sky may have been different in the past with a water canopy.

 

[Hollie]

One thing I never figured out...what exactly was the "firmament" that divided the waters below from the waters above?

It means the sky.

What Does the Bible Say About Firmament?

So there are waters above the sky? That doesn't work in context.

What context are you referring to?

It could have referred to the clouds. Or the sky may have been different in the past with a water canopy.

I wonder why the gods, in their science text of the Bible, didn’t give us a comprehensive explanation of thermal heating, evaporation, condensation, the action of water molecules and water surface tension... you know, science stuff.

Instead, we get nonsense stuff about firmaments.

 

[james bond]

I wonder why the gods, in their science text of the Bible, didn’t give us a comprehensive explanation of thermal heating, evaporation, condensation, the action of water molecules and water surface tension... you know, science stuff.

I've explained this countless number of times.

"Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life." Galatians 6:7-8

What I think happens is you will reap what you sow in the afterlife. I'm sure someone will explain all of this to you and make you write on the board many times over if you miss something. You also like to claim getting too emotional, so that should come into play for you, as well. I would toss in creation science to your evolutionary studies and make you determine which is the real science and which is the fake one. Lather, rinse, and repeat ad infinitum.

 

[Hollie]

I wonder why the gods, in their science text of the Bible, didn’t give us a comprehensive explanation of thermal heating, evaporation, condensation, the action of water molecules and water surface tension... you know, science stuff.

I've explained this countless number of times.

"Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life." Galatians 6:7-8

What I think happens is you will reap what you sow in the afterlife. I'm sure someone will explain all of this to you and make you write on the board many times over if you miss something. You also like to claim getting too emotional, so that should come into play for you, as well. I would toss in creation science to your evolutionary studies and make you determine which is the real science and which is the fake one. Lather, rinse, and repeat ad infinitum.

That was more of your usual heavy-handed, street corner proselytizing but it does nothing to address the lack of science in your claimed science text of the Bible.

You should avoid tossing in “creation science” as the charlatans who promote that fraud have a predefined agenda.

 

[alang1216]

Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?

Of course not. We believe that the claims about age, are false. There are number of reasons for this conclusion.

For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year. If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.

Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.

Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.

Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.

Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.

Take for example radio dating.... the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap. Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating. Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.

Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.

The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method. You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with. You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin. You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.

In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.

With that problem in mind:
Radio-Dating in Rubble

The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock. The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.

There is just one problem. The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens. The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.

Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years, then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.

So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too. The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated? The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again. The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years. You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.

 

[Andylusion]

Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?

Of course not. We believe that the claims about age, are false. There are number of reasons for this conclusion.

For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year. If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.

Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.

Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.

Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.

Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.

Take for example radio dating.... the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap. Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating. Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.

Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.

The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method. You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with. You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin. You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.

In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.

With that problem in mind:
Radio-Dating in Rubble

The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock. The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.

There is just one problem. The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens. The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.

Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years, then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.

So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too. The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated? The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again. The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years. You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.

Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?

I like your own links statement:

"'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'"

If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are. You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.

Because here's the reality. We have no idea how old, or young, any sample is. That's the whole point.

Beyond a few hundred years, or possibly a few thousand years, we have no idea if a rock sample is young or not. Is there any rock anywhere, that you can verify it's existence empirically, as being over 10,000 years? And the answer is, of course not.

That's the whole point of radio dating. Dr Austin is right. And it's not a scam... it's science.

The whole point of science is to empirically test, replicate, and demonstrate something is true.

You can't do that. So it's not science.

They did the same thing with samples from the grand canyon. They got 3 samples, split each sample into 3 parts. Sent one part of each sample, to three different radio-dating labs. Each lab, got widely different results, from the other labs.

This is because again... they have to make assumptions. That's a fact. It just is. If if you have to make assumptions that can change the results by hundreds of millions, or even billions of year... then it isn't science. It's your opinion creating a result.

 

[james bond]

Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?

Of course not. We believe that the claims about age, are false. There are number of reasons for this conclusion.

For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year. If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.

Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.

Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.

Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.

Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.

Take for example radio dating.... the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap. Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating. Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.

Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.

The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method. You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with. You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin. You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.

In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.

With that problem in mind:
Radio-Dating in Rubble

The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock. The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.

There is just one problem. The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens. The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.

Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years, then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.

So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too. The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated? The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again. The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years. You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.

Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist. There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.