That's the problem with the bible - you can take almost ANY verse from it and interpret it until it "proves" what you wanted to be proven or contains what you wanted it to contain. This statement should not insult you or your post, but it was one thing that drove me away from trusting most things written in the bible.

Radiometric dating for instance.

Cannot even take OP seriosuly. Your parents must be some christian fundamentalists.

I'm responding to the OT. The word used in Genesis for day, could also be translated era or period of time. So it wasn't a literal 24-hour period of time each "day". (And actually there is another word entirely that refers to the 24-hour day and it wasn't used in this account.) In addition it was not written to be scientifically accurate with this animal appeared here, because such information wouldn't of been useful to the audience that read it during in the day it was written. But the account does give the audience of that time a good look at what happened on earth during the six creative periods, without getting into the details. (The book was written in 1513 BCE by Moses) And actually the account has be lauded as a very good narrative of what happened as a observer standing on earth and going through the millions of years even down to when the animal groups appeared on the planet. Because if you read Gen 1:1 you find that the universe was already created even before the 6 periods began.

The dinosaurs appeared during the period of Gen 1:20-22 and disappeared by what ever mechanism brought their extinction during that time also. Its speculation but the dinosaurs were essentially used to maintain the plant-life so it didn't over run the planet and endanger to emergence of the mammal family, and once their task was done they were disposed of, for a lack of a better term.

One more thing, if you want answers don't restrict who can answer. What is the point of only hearing from people who agree with you? Different perspectives will make you think more and ultimately gain knowledge; otherwise this is just an exercise in confirmation bias.

Thought I'd touch on this one too.   Sorry I didn't note it in my previous reply.

Evolution never claims we came from monkeys.  I know we've all seen that stupid evolution of man image showing a monkey on the far left and eventually a man on the far right.   I don't know what moron worked on that image but they failed, big time.

What evelution suggests (and I say suggests because that's what all theory's are) is that man and apes (not monkeys) shared the same ancestor.   At one point, long ago, it is speculated that a single being evolved along 2 seperate paths.   1 path eventually became apes and the other path became humans.  There is only 1% variation between our DNA and the DNA of an ape.

Obviously countered by super powers.

I don't want to insult OP or anything, but "If your comment critizes my religious views without any good input, I have no problem reporting it and hopfully the mods take care of it. " worries me a bit, as ANY opposing opinion can very easily be interpretet as "critizising his religious views without any good input". The various contradictions in his post make it very easy to contradict him, so I hope this thread isn't just a trap. 

I take no offense to that since i also questioned my religion at one time, but ive seen things with my own eyes that cant be describe by science or theory. My question to you is what do you believe, everything a scientist say about the past is based on theories and assumptions would you put your faith in them or their words?

oan: im leaving the house so if i stop posting dont think i stopped responding im just not by a computer .

Ditto.

Fair. That would remove all doubt from the process.

But it isn't some fabricated congregation of numbers as the OP seems to believe, it's based upon known values such as the decay of carbon and the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere.