It’s a beautiful new world 😎 

 Here comes the new boss,
Same as the old boss. 

 Tis true I have a weak vocab.
I ain’t terrified of the truth at all.
I made it all the way through what the fella said. I’m open to anyone’s ideas.
I personally don’t think anyone knows the truth yet or is even close to knowing.
Maybe the bible is the truth. Maybe it isn’t.
I’m calling all religions BS. 

 Please read or listen to the King James Bible https://earnestlycontendingforthefaith.com/ListenToTheKingJamesBible.html 

 the dinosaurs that we found were rare  not because they are old but because it is unusual circumstances where so much water and mud piles up so fast the dead bodies have no time to decay before being encased in oxygen-free sedimentary rock

because what drowned them was so much water that it could only have been the actual ocean being washed over the land because the entire crust of the earth slipped into a new position

it's funny because i've seen a christian archaeology doco that talks about the fact that the preservation would have to have happened from a massive amount of water washing soil around, but they don't consider that the phenomenon of crustal slip could cause it (pole shift)

in fact, it is vaguely possible that a meteor strike of a large number of them hitting the pacific ocean, for example, could cause such flooding in a more localised area but a pole shift gives you the whole planet being mostly washed away, and the actual rain involved? that's because a pole shift is caused by a change in the magnetic fields around our solar system emanating from the galactic centre where the greatest nearby, magnetically aligned, rotating mass is... when two magnetic fields come into conflict at 90` the result is nullification of the magnetic field, and with no magnetic field the earth is flooded with space energy from stars, and plasma and high energy particles, which would fill the atmosphere with electric charge, which stimulates cloud formation

this is all pretty much done and dusted science at this point, but not the narrative they want us to believe

the whole dinosaurs thing is part of the lie about carbon fuels coming from dead animals and plants buried under the dust of a single large comet strike, or so we are supposed to believe

could be but why are they found all across the planet if it was just from a comet strike, surely one half of the planet would be thinly distributed... it takes a LOT of water to wash multi-tonne animals under the mud fast enough that they don't rot away before they are sealed up 

 You’re an archaeologist? 

 no, i'm a student of non-mainstream science in general, be it astrophysics, chemistry, physics, biology, anthropology, plenty of stuff in the "soft" fields very important too like economics and history 

 You may appreciate this: https://archive.is/2014.10.22-191936/http://www.apologia.com/courses/1/01010.html 

 Good insights, both of you. Lots to learn here 

 “ABIOGENIC OIL”. A phrase very few people know…FASCINATING! 

 the idea that there ISN'T deposits of primarily carbon and hydrocarbons in the crust of the earth is absurd

where did the carbon come from? are they trying to gaslight us and say "star stuff doesn't include carbon it is only formed from ejecta after a star lights up"

i don't think that is claimed at all, so, there is carbon, and carbon naturally is going to form stable molecules with hydrogen and oxygen that is also present, and yes, also water, water came from the star stuff too

i mean it's even a tenet of mainstream astrophysics that AT MINIMUM stars are formed from hydrogen, but it is also known that stars accumulate, and sometimes completely blow apart in a supernova and these gases reaccumulate and form new stars

so there is stars made of gases that include carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, and thus it will be found in the crust of most planets 

 So the tissue shouldn't be there, even after 10,000 years, tissue and blood doesn't survive that long.  OK I see. So that could only be explained by the fact its preserved so well. And a massive flood would explain this, because of all the mud that would set a round the animals, instantly at death. Is that right?
 

 Yep 

 Couldn't the fossils be millions of years old, but because they are preserved they appear more recent? If so, that would explain soft tissue blood cells. So it could still be millions of years old. This doesnt explain  carbon14 decay to nitrogen, which estimates its age to 10's of 1000's years old. Carbon dating is pretty reliable I believe.

This has to mean dinosaurs still lived within million years ago. 

I don't see what's at dispute? It seems clear dinosaurs didnt die 65mill years ago. How do they still defend this old hypothesis? What am I missing? 

 Looks like you got it