Carbon Dating, please tell me how it is wrong?

reply to post by edmc^2


Well, just ask away. I answered best I could, though it is sort of off topic cause I was a bit confused as to how evolution relates to it.

reply to post by edmc^2


They don't need that footnote because most people, even kids not even out of elementary school, know what a fossil is and how it's formed. Honestly I'm not sure what your point is here, obviously bone doesn't last millions of years, the only way for it to be left behind is as a fossil, a mineralized copy. We can't measure how long its been since the animal was alive but we can measure how long its been from the time it died and was fossilized. Short of a time machine it's about as good as it gets.

reply to post by Gorman91


I am a scientist by trade. You asked for a crack in the throne of carbon dating.. That is it and its there. There is nothing wrong with it and it does not mean we will stop using carbon dating. Its the best we have atm...

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by libertytoall

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm happy you showed me hybridization. Nothing crazy between like species creating a hybrid.. A strawberry and a raspberry hybrid is like a black guy and a white girl making a brown baby,, Nothing to see here.. Now can you show me humans to the ape and then to the fish with legs?

We can can answer it.

Fossils occur near oil because oil is a fossil fuel.

Where should I start.


"Supporting Evidence, Briefly Oil being discovered at 30,000 feet, far below the 18,000 feet where organic matter is no longer found. Wells pumped dry later replenished. Volume of oil pumped thus far not accountable from organic material alone according to present models. In Situ production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's upper mantle. (PhysicsWeb; Sept. 14, 2004)"


"Expounding the Theory Titan's Organic Hydrocarbons Dwarf Earth's Oil Reserves - Data from the Cassini probe orbiting Saturn has shown that the ringed planet's moon has "hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth." (Wired; Feb. 13, 2008)"

"'Fossil fuel' theory takes hit with NASA finding - NASA scientists are about to publish conclusive studies showing abundant methane of a non-biologic nature is found on Saturn's giant moon Titan, a finding that validates a new book's contention that oil is not a fossil fuel. (World Net Daily; Dec. 1, 2005)"

"In 1970 the Russians started drilling Kola SG-3, an exploration well which finally reached a staggering world record depth of 40,230 feet. Since then, Russian oil majors including Yukos have quietly drilled more than 310 successful super-deep oil wells, and put them into production. Last Year Russia overtook Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest single oil producer, and is now set to completely dominate global oil production and sales for the next century."

freeenergynews.com...

The facts certainly point toward not enough fossils and far too deep are oil reserves to have anything to do with decaying dinosaur bones and plants. Like I said it's created most likely in a process deep inside Earth's crust.

And no, oil is not running out..

reply to post by libertytoall

strawberry and a raspberry hybrid is like a black guy and a white girl making a brown baby,, Nothing to see here.

Not quite. Black people and white people taste the same.

Rest you mentioned? There's nothing that says some oils not produces one way, and some another.

This does not, however, answer my question of fossils being more present wherever oil it.

Because common sense would tell you based on all the evidence, that MAGMA creates oil, large amounts of fossils are found where oil deposits are because most likely large amounts of life DIED from MAGMA there..

reply to post by libertytoall


Other than the fact that oil would burn in those temperatures, there is no volcanic activity in the largest oil fields in the middle east and elsewhere. Hell most of the time there isn't a great deal of earthquakes either.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Well, just ask away. I answered best I could, though it is sort of off topic cause I was a bit confused as to how evolution relates to it.

Like i said - a conundrum of confusion. You know why?

Because both sets of belief are incompatible with each other.

That is, no one (try hard as they may) can reconcile the two since one destroys the other.

One has to completely reject the Bible in order to make it seem that God used evolution to advance man.

But the simple fact is - in the beginning - God created man complete and perfect as the scripture say:

He created man is his own image.

tc.

reply to post by edmc^2


In the beginning was the word. God created man some time after the beginning. There was a whole war in heaven as I recall. Though you could perhaps interpret it to be during the fall. But then we'd have to say the entire reation story is just a poem.


The word is incompatible with itself under your contentions, if taken 100% literal to the young earth view.

Simply put, how can you have Genesis 1 and 2 under the same timeline?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by edmc^2

 

In the beginning was the word. God created man some time after the beginning. There was a whole war in heaven as I recall. Though you could perhaps interpret it to be during the fall. But then we'd have to say the entire reation story is just a poem.


The word is incompatible with itself under your contentions, if taken 100% literal to the young earth view.

Simply put, how can you have Genesis 1 and 2 under the same timeline?

Easy.

Genesis Chapter 1:1 is a synapses of the entire physical creation of the Universe and the Earth.

Genesis 1:2- 2:1 describes what transpired on each of the creative "day" (events)

Genesis 2:2-24 describes the creation of man as well as his initial activities on earth - a closer look of man's creation and what he did after being created and how he got his wife.

Gen3 - describes man's fall.

Gen 4 - Adam and Eve starts to multiply and populate the earth.

...Cain took one of his sisters as wife.

and the rest is history...

and no mention of evolution as confirmed by Jesus.

tc.

reply to post by edmc^2


Except the whole creating man on the 6th day in one account, and then creating man on what seems like the 2nd day on the other account.

Also that bit about the nephilim leaving the planet.

Also that bit of Cain living in a city

Also that part about taking a sister, as God does not change and does not allow that, and it never says he took his sister.

I mean, where do I begin under the traditional culturally constructed, assumptions telling? Most of what you are saying is not possible, and in fact, is your own non-biblical addition.

a reply to: Nerdling I agree.with what you are saying