thankyou ,keith..very fair of you, and snail for link that mentioned complications. the argument just hinges on whether the effects of the year long upheaval of the flood would be sufficient to account for the extra "read"" years". obviously most of you will say it is not, but are quite happy to conjecture that totally impossible things happened.
bill ,and jack were apparently looking to radio carbon for their millions of years, but even steve corrected that idea.
and there are reports of radio carbon in dino bone, though last I heard that information had been censored, but I expect eventually it will be acknowledged, just as soft tissue in supposedly millennia old bone once was denied.. seems jack and stu agree to the circular reasoning of .......because we "know" they are 60 and more millions of yr old therefore soft tissue can last that long!.
bill- just to clarify...yes I believe the genealogies are accurate, but I think it a perfectly reasonable belief.      even ,for sake of argument there were errors, as in your family research, there were a margin of error in genesis, it still pans out as man created only thousands of years ago. I presume you think your ancestral records essentially trustworthy.
what evidences are they, shimrod?
have you read greatest hoax on earth yet?
as to your other question...I have enough to counter without extra challenges.