The concept of carbon dating ... 

As current rates of emissions increase, according to the research, a new piece of clothing in 2050 would have the same carbon date as a robe worn by William the Conqueror 1,000 years earlier.

"If we did any current measurements on new products, they will end up having the same fraction of radiocarbon to total carbon as something that's lost it over time due to decay," said Dr Graven.

"So if we just measure the fraction they'll look like they have the same age for radiocarbon dating."

"It really depends on how much emissions increase or decrease over the next century, in terms of how strong this dilution effect gets," said Dr Graven.

"If we reduce emissions rapidly we might stay around a carbon age of 100 years in the atmosphere but if we strongly increase emissions we could get to an age of 1,000 years by 2050 and around 2,000 years by 2100."

The research has been published in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

**************************************************************************************************

So, if a fish fossil is found on the top of Mt. Everest ...it is explained as plate tectonics, one plate moving over another plate, thrusting the one plate to form a mountain. Of course, bringing its fossils with it ...so well preserved.  (Why is that relevant? Maybe it would be wise to address that later.) 

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), "The world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide."

Another article mentions that inactive volcanoes still emit gas. And moving tectonic plates, mid-ocean ridges add even more CO2 emissions.  That estimate brings it near 645 million tons, and mankind still is estimated to contribute 37 times more than that.

Recent research has taken a more accurate look at carbon reserves in the Earth's upper mantle ...studying what they've estimated by discoveries underneath the United States. (The upper mantle begins approximately 25 miles deep, to about 425 miles ...just above the lower molten mantle.)

These studies have led scientists to estimate approximately 100 trillion tons of carbon in the Earth's upper mantle, with only about 3 trillion tons of CO2 (or actually about 870 billion tons of actual carbon) in the atmosphere today.

" ...and all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of heaven were opened." (Yes, quoted from the Bible ...and a hint about the fish fossils.)

The molten lower mantle bursting through the carbon rich upper mantle of the Earth would have an immeasurable effect ...which we could not calculate. But, what I can calculate is that it could have an effect similar to what scientists today say could make a T-shirt with my name on it look over a thousand years old (because of increased carbon). And if one hundred trillion tons of carbon is estimated in the upper mantle today, how many hundreds of trillions were in the mantle before the fountains burst forth??

An article by Climate Central, explains carbon dating this way:  

"But big changes in the atmosphere can throw off this method, like releasing tons of extra carbon dioxide into the air from burning fossil fuels. Because fossil fuels like coal and oil are so old, they have no radiocarbon remaining. When burned, they increase the amount of carbon dioxide, which dilutes the radiocarbon in the atmosphere and the amount that can be absorbed by organic material."

Plants, including from the smallest to the much larger trees, absorb CO2 ...and the oceans absorb much too.  It is said that 350 parts per million is a safe level of CO2 in our atmosphere.  It is reported that we have about 415 parts per million (the year 2021). A report says that if we reach 500 parts per million, the temperature of the earth will rise three degrees Celcius, which is about five degrees Fahrenheit. Yet, I don't see any temperature change to any devastating degree from the first 100 parts per million as of this time.  Nor do I feel the oceans will rise as so many climate scientists claim.

But, that's another story ...and I have written at length about it (in case you doubted my lengthy discourses) elsewhere.

Moving on ...

The potassium-argon method is used to estimate the age of rocks. Also, the uranium-lead method ...often even preferred. 

What does it say about the age of rocks??  How about these rocks??   "You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for I had ordained you.  You were on the holy mountain of God; you walked among the fiery stones.  From the day you were created you were blameless in your ways ---until wickedness was found in you ..."

Cherub ...an angelic being, living in some abode, and at some point walking on the mountain of God.  When was that???  I don't know.  You can guess if you are interested in dating the rocks.  I am more interested in reading the Bible.

It seems that this is becoming more and more of a hot topic.  Does the Bible lead one to question science, or does science lead one to question the Bible??  Or can we jump through hoops, priding ourselves in our interpretations of the Bible in a way that the science community can also embrace our storytelling ability??  Maybe certain aspects of it are true, but oftentimes it is more accurately called 'compromise'.

There were many cases during World War II (I'm referencing this war because it is real to my Dad) where a young man was married and then had to join others overseas.  If the young men found time to write, they would.  And they would especially look forward to getting a letter from their girlfriend or wife.  The young serviceman's wife would sometimes be expecting their child, knowing that her husband would not be able to be there for the birth ...but, also knowing her husband would want to know all the details about the birth.

In the Bible, the first verse is about the preparation for the birth of mankind ...the 'in the beginning' details. And there are in fact details.  The serviceman wants to know details about the birth of their child also.  The wife may write that she delivered a healthy girl, weighing 8 pounds and measuring 21 inches long.  But, because of complications, she has to stay in the hospital at least a couple days for evaluation and her husband's parents are taking care of their newborn. Also their dog just had a litter of 5 puppies. 

If I am the husband and I just received this letter, I can't imagine I wouldn't believe it is true.  I would hang onto her every word.  It would not make sense to think she gave birth to a boy, weighing 21 pounds and measuring 8 inches long; that she left the hospital with our baby the very next day; but his parents stole their child. Yet, she is fine with all that because their dog got hit by a car and is littered all over the road. Someone may say I'm not interpreting the true meaning of my wife's letter ...that I'm not at all reading a true account, not to mention the message that was intended.  

The second verse of the Bible mentions darkness, an earth without form, and water ...much water is implied, as the Spirit of God moves over it, in darkness. There is some sort of earth at some age, and there is water which has been there for who knows how long.  Maybe the scientists can work on aging those things.

Personally, I read about angels in the Bible.  Is science able to place them where they came into being??  There are hints as to the before or after ...the angels seemed to exist before the 'in the beginning' as it is not their beginning we read about in verse one, but rather mankind's.  And the angels had some habitat, some relationship with God, some mountain, some stones ...who knows, perhaps throw in some trees, some variation of animals, and even some slightly subhuman creatures with a familiar design, but not in the image of God.  Wouldn't that make your science happy??  You can have fun putting everything in place, digging up fossils, and dating your next door neighbor while she dates the rocks and fossils.

My point, of what I believe, is that there were no humans created in the image of God until this six day Creation that happened after the angelic rebellion ...which God halted by whatever awesome means He did, inclusive of removing the Light and drowning the living quarters.

At this time, I believe God created not a subhuman, but a human in the image of God, to know God. These humans would not know God as the angels had known Him, it would take much longer to get to really know Him ...but potentially they could know Him better, just over a limited span of time.  Yet, it would be documented, so all could see what the others had seen and experienced.

But, what if one of the rebellious angels set out to confuse ...so these special humans would not easily know God for who He is??  What if one rebellious angel proposed that God lied, and not only that, but offered a second more powerful lie about why God lied??

What if there was so much confusion after a while that there was little basis to believe anything, and most everyone was at odds with one another?? What if I were to pray for the truth, so God could reveal to me what happened, to put an end to all the debates.  

Well, first of all it wouldn't end the debates. Someone is always going to question the reliability of any source.  And secondly, it was not me whom God revealed the truth to.

I believe God did reveal the truth so we could know what to believe. How was this made available?? Well, is 40 years in a desert with not much to do ...would that be sufficient time for Moses to write down what God would have him write??  Would giving Moses the story straight end the debate??   Would anyone in the future debate these things, knowing we have something we can all trust to believe in??

Of course, we see the answer to that.  And we see the way things are going.  There seems to be more confusion than before ...but, still, we have a source to believe in, if we want to. 

Some people have called me a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) ...and they also feel that qualifies as a 'literalist'. Well, with a literal translation of the Bible, I read the second verse to say there was something before the first day of Creation.  And as mentioned earlier, that would include a habitat ...so, no, I'm not promoting myself quite specifically as a YEC.  For those who like labels, why not try this one ...I believe in six literal 24-hour days for Creation.

No, I'm not tripping out ...no, I've never used street drugs, so calling me a LSD person means something a bit different (Literal Six Days), but also a bit more accurate.  Not to be confused with LDS.

There are many good scientists ...and maybe my failed attempt at humor sounded a bit too much.  I appreciate the work that so many scientists have done, and what they have done has helped improve many things in our lives and make me happy. While I was growing up, sarcasm was a form of affection.  Not everyone agrees, and I had a misunderstanding with someone at work once because of it.  

So, my bit of sarcasm was more my emotional reaction to those who do not really respect true science themselves.  Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't like you.  I just feel that no one should say only their science is correct, when in reality, the cumulative work of all scientists help science move forward.  No human can always be correct, so we need each other to cover a vast array of ideas.

It was deliberate when I said, 'no human' ...as on both accounts I was referring to the science of ID (Intelligent Design).  So many people are dismissive towards ID science, and I say that the 'no human' can always be correct ...yes, I am saying that God always is correct.  And to consider ID science is the beginning of getting it right.

To me, God has to absolutely be in the picture ...if you don't believe in God, then He is still in the picture, you just have the picture turned around facing the wall.

I don't know what wall you have in your life, we all have walls ...but, if the wall is preventing you from being open to God, then that is a quite substantial wall.

If you are open to God, then I hope you view Him as more than merely directing a few atoms over 14 billions years ago.  I do not see God in a passive role.  Like the serviceman and his wife actively writing letters, God is the One who created those relationships.  And Jesus allowing Himself to be crucified for our sake shows me, without a doubt, a very active loving God.

Yet, even before all that is written in the Bible ...there was much action.  I certainly don't view the angels as couch potatoes ...as what I may appear to be while writing this. And certainly, I see the angels being a bit more active than they should have been. A third of them rebelled ...and I can't imagine what that was like, but I certainly don't see species very patiently evolving during this time.

Yes, that's one thing that I never hear in an evolution conversation ...the angels.  And I've never heard those who believe in the Bible and believe in evolution (and believe the two are compatible) say anything about angels.

Where did the angels come from??  I appreciate your humor if you say they came from Los Angeles.  I try to mix humor with truth, yet I do try to separate the two ...not laughing about the truth.

If the truth be known, I believe in two creations ...and actually, two floods.  I believe God created the angels in the first creation, and the first flood to stop the rebellion. Again, the second verse of the Bible:

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

I believe the angels are not mentioned here because they were created before the darkness ...and when the earth did have form.  That is an entirely different story that would likely peak our interest so much, we'd pay more attention to it than we would our own story ...the Bible.

When I said no human can always be correct (in reference to science), it can also be said about a person's interpretation of what the Bible says. My Dad made an even broader statement, asking how I know my religion is the correct religion ...with thousands of religions throughout the world. My response was, "That's a good question, Dad ...it does seem rather arrogant doesn't it, to think the religion I believe in is the true one.  But, it's not really my religion ...it is the religion of a very small nation across the globe, one that is not that popular with neighboring nations, and one that tells a rather bad history about itself.  If I was going to try to promote my own religion, I would attempt to make it more rosy and certainly wouldn't try to make myself look bad. Yet, that's all the more reason I believe it's true, and it's the only religion that makes any sense to me."

Evolution doesn't make any sense to me ...yet, if you don't believe in Creation, it seems you'd have to think we exist today because of evolution. If there is some other way, I'm missing it.  Unless you do believe in Creation, but just not how I interpret it ...or some other way of Creation other than the Bible account.  If you believe aliens from another galaxy seeded Earth, then those aliens would have either evolved or were created ...or you'd believe they always existed.  Maybe God is alien to you ...but, it's not because He wants it that way, in that case the wall is within you.  And many people are eager to help you build it.

(I guess I did already create a blog on this subject: https://doyouthinkthishasmerit.blogspot.com/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIBU91leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHfG6IuZFV5x8CecqTUkGYpksYwcD0ta06wVqkSSJGM5WU26bs3oMvWYxcA_aem_2fUDSeEDdWxVBXGKC6gbpg)