True, though there were always a bunch of things that never quite fit, and also this had to do with the quality of the evidence being too low to make clear the distinctions and problems that would crop up when, say, telescopes and such became much more powerful tools. Also true, but then, so could anything. If you want to argue that it is, then you need arguments and evidence for this position. I'm not sure why you'd quote this as a problem with using carbon dating: this is one of the many known elements that carbon dating takes into account. Scientists KNOW about all the issues with carbon dating, and they've found ways to correct for them. That's what science does: it's doesn't just throw up its hands and say "well, I'm done, I've hit a problem, the end." However, this specific example, I think you're telling it wrong. There is 0% chance that you would get a date of "40 million years" on anything involving carbon isotopes. Carbon's half life is too short: it's only good for fairly recent things (even a million years is outside its scope). Exactly. They may have laughed at Einstein, they may have laughed at Wegner, but they also laughed a Groucho Marx. For every genius with a revolutionary idea, there are a million crackpots with ideas that went nowhere. What separates the crackpots from the true revolutionaries is that they have real solid, well argued EVIDENCE on their side. Right now, the evidence is all for evolution, old earth, etc. It's all well and good to muse about how maybe this is wrong, but if you want to claim its' so, then you need evidence, not speculation. What the heck does one have to do with the other? Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of god. It just shows that the earth is not 6000 years old and that genesis can't be read litterally. I've generally also found that the "amazing things God has done in my life" seem a lot less amazing, and a lot less obviously the work of God, when put in context.