[Dimensio]

I apologise, BUT it still was determined to be the skelatal remains of a man who had severely crippling arthuritis.

Please provide a reference to support this claim.

Also, lava at the top of one of Hawaii's volcanos was dated by carbon dating to be MILLIONS of YEARS old when the HISTORICAL record PROVED it to be from the 19th century!

This is impossible. It is not possible to derive an age greater than 60,000 years from carbon dating. Any dating beyond that limit could only be determined as "older than 60,000 years", with no distinction betweet 100,000 years and 20,000,000 years. You are clearly not recalling an event accurately.

This same carbon dating was used on a LIVE, i.e. LIVING mullusk and the mullusk was dated to have been DEAD OVER 100,000 years!!! Someone must have forgot to tell the mullusk!

Carbon dating is not used on ocean-dwelling organisms. Moreover you are again claiming a calculated age that cannot be obtained through carbon dating.

[Dimensio]

I neglected to mention in my previous posting that carbon dating is also not usable on living organisms. As such, an "invalid" date taken from a living organism cannot be used as evidence that carbon dating is inaccurate.