bill. it is true that I have not personally consulted Hebrew scholars, as I am sure you suspect. it is admittedly 2nd hand reading, but including one james barr [I think] who stated what I indicated in my previous post.
and it is relevant because it was specifically related to your challenging what the text said, seemingly implying the uncertainty of what it said.
as to the dating methods supposed "amazing regularities", have - you -consulted the lab experts on that ?
and did you ask them if they know the starting conditions of samples, conditions throughout, and if they are sure there was no gain or loss during unobserved time. did you also ask them how rocks of known age have been read as myo?.
and, of course, I cannot refute the 27 areas of evolutionary interpretations of data,........anymore than you can confirm them !.
I suspect you just have faith in the ruling paradigm.

shimrod "...moral integrity of creationists" not necessarily creationist...IDers, Darwin doubters, who might be Christians or might not . certainly a biblical creationist might not volunteer information that might endanger his job, as Darwinism has precisely nothing to offer, or to do, with practical science.

jack has a stab at making an argument, but as he is a foulmouthed antagonist , I will not reply any further.