so bill, a water capable dino bigger than t rex...maybe he was leviathan ? !.
"...use science to dispute science.." so what do you think should be used to demonstrate that a theory lacks scientific validity.
"the burden of proof is on the asserter"   quite agree ! when I assert that soft tissue/dna could not last myo, I think there is experimental, observational, repeatable substantiation for that.
when you assert that evolutionism is true....prove it.
"...dating rocks is more accurate than translating many old manuscripts". i.m surprised, bill, you using this argument, as it sounds like a logical fallacy to me. which is more accurate, is open to question, but seem to me irrelevant . even if you were correct, it says nothing about the dating in question. ie even if there were massive problems with mss, it would not mean dating rocks was not problematic.
however, we have been here before, and I explained that infallibility only applied to the original ms, and i have never claimed that mistakes have not arisen since. despite this, these mistakes are relatively insignificant. your methusaleh example is a case in point.
the Masoretic [Hebrew] text has him dying in the year of the deluge, while the Septuagint [greek translation] has him expiring after.
a copyist error is the most likely explanation.

mrrzy- I don't know how to do c an p, but if you can pull out the validity of extrapolating bugs to botanist evolution from the observable adaption and variability using that link, or any other, please do.