Sad what Bible Inerrancy can do to a mind!

Are you seriously telling me, Drum, that you're here debating this stuff and have never so much as read an 8th-grade Earth Science book, or watched Nova on TV? You've yet to hear of plate tectonics, or the term "geology?" Great googley-moogley, man! I am astounded.

If you had bothered to research the issue itself you would know that the level of C14 fluctuates because the production rate varies.And at present the proportion of C14 in the atmosphere is unusually low because of all the old carbon being burnt (fossil fuels).

1)Whats your point?
2)Why are there trees standing standing straight up in rock layers if it was not catastrophic event?
3)Do you believe in evolution and that everything came into order by an explosion? If you do, would you please explain to me how that makes sense?
4)If evolution is true why are there "living fossils"?
5)Yes I am learning about things like carbon-14. So bear with me.

PaulK,I did look at that page about carbon-14. To tell you the truth a lot of that gives me a headache!

Well that is something of a problem for you. If you need everything kept simple for you - and I am assuming that that is the problem - you are never going to be able to get into all the details you would need to know to have a really informed opinion.So surely the right position for you to take would be to accept the fact that carbon dating has been quite thoroughly tested and has been found to be reliable.

I was just joking. Actually I believe carbon-14 is reliable but not for millions of years.

But who is claiming that 14C dating is reliable for millions of years? About 40-45 thousand years would be the limit of 14C dating - and that's if you have a fairly large sample, a good AMS facility and a bit of luck.

I think Coragyps is simply expressing curiousity at how you managed to escape high school without learning anything about geology. Not accepting modern geology is one thing, knowing nothing about it is another. I'm not the best here to explain this one, but if I'm too far off the mark someone can correct me. The tree took root while the layers were still soil and sand and so forth. While the tree was still alive the region depressed and became deeply buried with many layers eventually accumulating above. The intense pressure turned the layers to rock, including the tree with its root system decending through the layers. Eventually the region elevated and erosion exposed the layers so the fossilized tree could be discovered. The Big Bang was not an explosion but a rapid expansion. The universe is still expanding today, 13.7 billion years later.But you're right, there's no such thing as a free lunch. The only way you can get increased order in one part of the universe is to pay for it with an even bigger decrease in order in another part of the universe. The increased order we have here on earth is paid for with energy from the Sun. This law of nature is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is no requirement that species go extinct, nor is there any requirement that they evolve. Some species have been around for a very long period of time.Evolutionary change is driven by environmental pressures. Some species have somehow always found friendly niches through the ages, and so haven't changed.By the way, these aren't your questions. They appear at many Creationist websites and have been asked here many, many times. They're terribly naive and rhetorical and are presented to the ignorant in order to prove just how stupid current scientific views are, as if any rational person would actually hold views so full of such obvious contradictions.--Percy

Percy hit my point dead on in the post above. I was being unnecessarily testy when I wrote that, and I apologize.

quote:

---

2)Why are there trees standing standing straight up in rock layers if it was not catastrophic event?

---

Please site the specific example you are refering to. There are, in fact, instance of "catastrophic" events which have buried living forests. Volcanic eruptions have done this more than once.

OK, so you knew that the AiG page was wrong and that carbon dating disproves YEC (you do know that carbon dating is reliable enough to idnetify dates for TENS of thousands of years ?)

PaulK,Check this out. I'm sure they can explain it better than I can. Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? | Answers in Genesis

NosyNed,Check this out. They might explain it better than I. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

Drummachine -I suggest you take specific Carbon 14 questions to a "Dates and Dating" topic, perhaps "Quick question on carbon dating" or "fossils and carbon dating".Or perhaps you'd like to pick out another topic, at the "Dates and Dating" list.Mt. Saint Helens has its own topic at "Mt. Saint Helens now has it's own topic!" (what a clever title!).Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

From the site you offered (without any comment I might add) so I don't know what you are trying to refer to.

quote:

---

there’s one rock layer that’s 30 feet thick — and it was formed in less than one day — in fact in one afternoon

---

(this is in reference to Mt St Helen's)You have chosen as a reference a site that can't tell the difference between unconsolidated ash and very solid stone. I'm afraid as a geological reference it's credibility isn't as solid as the ash.(am I allowed to say it? --they're trying to make an ash out of you? :-) )