This also.

I believe what I think could possibly have happened in the past, most books of the OT ARE pretty believable (scientists already discovered several cities mentioned in the OT but nowhere else), but I simply think the evolution theory is more convincing that the Genesis.

It is. But when dealing with numbers and formulas such as these there are some things to remember. Sometimes formulas don't reflect something as well as another thing that are similar. Sometimes being very slightly off effects everything. But what I'd like to know is if a certain point something were to happen that we haven't observed yet (internally and externally).

Read my reponse to the first person that bought up radiometric dating, before trying to disprove something someone believes make sure your proof is legit. Radiometric dating is based on an asssumption it is not fact like most theories scientist present. No one man knows the truth until he dies. Now im leaving the house seriously this time.

If carbon dating were the only method we used, you'd have a valid point.  But have dozens.  Some offer more accurate pictures or work on better elements than others but when you combine them together, it's pretty damn hard to refute the results.

It sure is not 100% accurate but if we date something at 65 million years old do you honestly think we are off by 64.996 million years?  When did faith become ignoring facts?  Dinosaurs are irrelevant to God's message in the bible, to focus on the trivial in this way is to not see the forest through the trees so to speak. 

So you think. People also had evidence that protiens carried our genetic material at one point and that atoms were the smallest particle. But we know better now. All I'm saying is you can't say its absolute untill proven and it takes a lot to prove something.

Also, even with the dating it still doesn't disprove religion. Just certain views religions has held at one point (just like science has done to itself so many times before)

And I'm not religious. I love science and truth (biochem major with a minor in philosophy). But I'm not going to be so quick to say "this disproves that or this proves it"

I'm not trying to disprove anything as I said I don't take OP seriosuly.

You mean this quote?

That's not even an argument. Besides I said radiometric dating for a reason not limiting myself to radiocarbon method.

And you just behave overly aggressive, not that I care, just a suggestion to not take it personally whatever your believes might be.

And you'll never hear me say science disrpoves God.  Only it changes perceptions and interpretations.

You are correct that newer information changes previously held scientific data.  But that's also the point of science.  By design it is supposed to be constantly updated.  You could say that science is merely a momentary snapshot of accumulated data.

But as noted by Flash Gordon, even if they were off a little bit, it's not likely that all methods are off by 4.8 billion years....or 65 million (depending on what you are dating)

I don't understand why that if things can't be explained, it must be that God exists? Like, say, if I can see ghosts, WTF would that have to do with God? Why must there be only a single entity? Why not Gods? If I can shoot energy from my hands and nobody can explain it, WTF would that have to do with religions or God? God is a theory in itself, anything scientists say about the past are all theories unproven based on proven science is pretty much it, but I have no idea what that has anything to do with the bible or God even if we can prove an ancient document written by "men" to be wrong on many terms.

One thing I do know is that the Chinese populace is the only remaining ancient civilization today at about 5000-6000 years and we don't even have those kinds of records that people worship. We did have a lot of scandalous fucks reaping off the ignorant in our history though. Perhaps Moses and the likes of Jesus just did a better job than the rest, prolly why one got chased out and the other crucified IMO.