2. Please show me cave drawings of dinosaurs. Since they obviously died out before Egyptian society(per your statement). You would think that a dinosaur would have been the subject of at least a couple paintings, since buffalo and antelopes take up the vast majority.
3.The egyptians do not date back to 3000bc
OK, so lets say the flood happened 3000B.C. So that is 5K years ago. Since the entire universe is 6K years old, then the dino's had to have only lived for 1K years at most. But you say it was a couple thousand years. So that pushes back the creation of the UNIVERSE to well over 6K years. Sounds like you do not believe your 6K year old universe brothers. So do you try to convince them that their timetable is wrong?
4. There is no data to support millions of years other than circular arguments that don't add up.
Tell me how light from the Andromeda Galaxy that is 2.3 million light years away is hitting us now, if the universe is only 6K-10K(your out of the norm timeframe) years old?
A MISTAKE?! You have to be kidding, out of your nut or think we're all stupid here. It wasn't "A MISTAKE." It was a theory that got repeated till it was stated as defacto "fact". It wasn't a mistake, it was a concert of bs and wishful thinking propounded to prop up a theory that had nothing propping it up.
1. Ceolacanths aren't extinct.
2. Ceolacanths don't look like they were portrayed.
3. Ceolacanths don't have lungs.
4. Ceolacanths don't have legs and cannot walk.
5. Ceolacanths aren't a marker for the fossil record.
6. Ceolacanths exist in two oceans at least and never "evolved".
One could go on but we've got 6 issues here and the only one that comes close to being a mistake is the assumption that the beast was extinct. The rest is anything but a mistake. Ceolacanths were portrayed this way for a reason. And when it was proven balderdash, you want to call it a mistake!
2. Please show me cave drawings of dinosaurs. Since they obviously died out before Egyptian society(per your statement). You would think that a dinosaur would have been the subject of at least a couple paintings, since buffalo and antelopes take up the vast majority.
This is an assumption made from another assumption. One, the cave paintings show what? Hunting scenes. You're assuming men hunted dinosaurs for food. There is no evidence of that of which I am aware. In fact, I think your side would balk at that notion; but, I don't much care. Two, you're assuming that men cared enough to paint everything they did or that all cave paintings survived.
What do we know about natural pigments? We know that humidity over time destroys them - even when sealed away for centuries - The egyptian tombs are good examples. Even in the best of conditions, natural pigments are destroyed over time. Your assumption is that the cave paintings happened before the egyptians. There is nothing to support this supposition. And if natural processes are a guide, then the slow destruction of cave paintings over time should tell us they aren't all that old. Which doesn't leave you in a very good position. And Yes, I'm both an artist and and egyptology nut. The truth is that natural pigments are not hardy and are difficult to keep from fading under any circumstance. There are exceptions, but not many.
OK, so lets say the flood happened 3000B.C. So that is 5K years ago. Since the entire universe is 6K years old, then the dino's had to have only lived for 1K years at most. But you say it was a couple thousand years. So that pushes back the creation of the UNIVERSE to well over 6K years. Sounds like you do not believe your 6K year old universe brothers. So do you try to convince them that their timetable is wrong?
I didn't say the Egyptians came into being at 3000ad nor did I say the Dinos died off in 3000. I don't accept either your premise or your conclusion. I didn't set a specific time but rather a neighborhood - a few thousand years at best. I don't think the Egyptians started until 2500-2000 years ad. Giving Dinos between 1500-2000 years play room. That's no small amount of time. Nor is it in conflict with any of my Christian or religious pals. But it is noteworthy that you have to aggrivate the argument by mistating it in order to make anything resembling a logical point - falacy-ridden though it may be. Clutching at straws is not good form, btw.
Tell me how light from the Andromeda Galaxy that is 2.3 million light years away is hitting us now, if the universe is only 6K-10K(your out of the norm timeframe) years old?
First, you'll need to prove it's distance. I took enough math to be a double major in it. I'm also a programmer. If you know the length of TWO sides of a triangle, you can establish the length of the third. If you know the length of one side and know the exact angles of the other two, then you can derive the lenths of the other two. But scale requires accuracy. The greater the scale, the greater the requirement of precision. You don't have a measurable starting point because you literally don't even know the exact distance between earth and the moon. It is a rough distance. And you don't need to bother arguing that point. I think most here are aware of it.
Furthermore, you don't know if there are obstructions shifting the apparent position of the star from where it actually is. And that is not only a fair statement, it's accurate and devastating to your argument. If you can't garauntee you're pointed at the correct angles and matched to the same point on both ends of a known lenth, you can't get there from here. You can't even say with any amount of certainty that the colors we percieve are correct because you can't garauntee absence of obstructions in the case of Any star. The tall and short of it is that you know about as much about space as the predacessors of columbus knew about the oceans yet want to sell us a map of the universe and pontificate about how accurate it is. Guess what, they were more intelligent than you - they took environmental factors into account and still got it wrong.
The only reason we have a rough idea about how far away the moon is happens to be that we went there and bore it out. We've not been to a single star yet to be able to establish a standard rule of distance that can be looked upon as sure. So don't try to sell a mathemitician with a physics background on your quackery.