Evolutionists, what do you think of the carbon 14 found in dinosaur bones?

The Bible says that all of the animals from the first earth age died out about 14000 yrs ago. That's why dinosaur bones have carbon 14 in them. A T Rex leg bone in Montana had undegraded tissue within the bone. 70 million years is a fantasy that evolutionists invented to show gradualism. The whole thing about evolution is a lie. The only factor that evolves in evolution is the excuses why you don't see evidence of it.

EDITED FOR SPACE:

Regarding the discovery of collagen in ancient fossils, well, that's what's so great about science, it's not dogma. What was once assumed to be impossible can be overturned by good science and sufficient evidence. The textbooks will have to be rewritten, but all that means is that the soft tissue has some way of surviving for that long that we previously didn't know about or suspect. However, we're talking about tiny amounts of collagen, not chunks of muscle fiber or skin or anything like that.

As far as doing Carbon 14 dating on it, any result you take will necessarily be inaccurate because Carbon 14 dating only works back to around 60,000 years ago, and it only works on certain materials, and even then it has to be used carefully depending on the surroundings. Furthermore, the strata that the fossils were found in have been conclusively dated to around 68 million years old, as repeatedly pointed out in the Smithsonian article. If various methods of dating the strata all come up agreeing on the same approximate date, and the collagen is dated using a method that shouldn't work and it comes up with another date, which date do you think is more reliable? So why are *you* trusting the date that scientists who know about radiometric dating would expect to be wrong? That isn't good science, that's personal bias.

It *is* a fascinating discovery that bones millions of years old can manage to preserve tiny amounts of soft tissue, but the evidence supports the fact that this *is* possible. Merely assuming it's impossible is not evidence that it's impossible. If you have evidence that it's impossible under these conditions, write a science paper and get it published in a reputable science journal. That would be FAR more convincing than merely insisting it can't happen.

Just take a look at page 3 of the Smithsonian article you linked to that starts with, "Geologists have established". Even the scientist who discovered this, and who is a Christian mind you, says that this dinosaur is 68 million years old and doesn't like creationists trying to twist the data to fit their own agenda. If she can accept the fact that it's that old, why can't you? Are you saying you know better than a someone who's actually trained to understand this kind of thing? Isn't that kind of arrogant?

As for the Laetoli footprints, yeah, those are hominid footprints. No dinosaur footprints there though.

I hope that clears some things up for you. :-)

NEW:

You are correct that the bones were not dated separately. My apologies for that error. I corrected that above.

Google says "decomposition theory" is a math term, not anything related to biology. Seriously, point me to the science papers that say, "it is IMPOSSIBLE for soft tissue to exist beyond 100,000 years".

Science generally is about probabilities. You won't find scientists using the word "impossible" very often outside of mathematics. While scientists used to believe that it was highly unlikely that collagen could last millions of years, all it takes is some really good evidence to change their minds. There's still some debate, but the evidence has slowly swung in favor of this being probable.

Why, change this and not the dating you ask? The methods of dating fossils includes numerous forms of dating which have been cross verified. We have radiocarbon dating, tree ring samples, ice core samples, magnetic polarity data (due to the periodic reversal of the Earth's magnetic field), and numerous other methods for establishing geochronology. On the other hand, we pretty much just had an untested assumption that collagen couldn't last that long.

So, with robustly verified science versus weak assumption, the weak assumption gets thrown out. Science goes by probabilities, not bias, and the probabilities favor collagen lasting longer than we expected since that requires the least new assumptions (Occam's razor). We don't think it's a "plot by Christians to discredit evolution", we just go with the odds.

As for Carbon-14 dating fossils, it's pseudoscience. If you find C14 in the fossil, then the it didn't come from the organism, but from the surroundings instead, and therefore YOU CAN'T USE IT TO DATE THE OBJECT. C14 dating is for dating ORGANIC carbon, and if the organic material is almost all replaced with minerals, then you get wrong numbers.

Even if you separate the collagen and other soft tissues from the minerals, that separation is done by soaking the fossil in ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), which has a chemical formula of C10-H16-N2-O8. So you're contaminating the materials with modern carbon.

So there are numerous reasons why C14 dating results on fossils can't be trusted.

I don't think you actually read the Smithsonian and Nature articles. Both disprove the creationist point you're trying to make. Dr Schweitzer, a professed Christian, even objects to creationists misuse of her findings. You're trying to make an argument with information that disproves the point you're trying to make. The phys.org doesn't in any way dispute the age of the dinosaur bones.

The tissue wasn't actually soft when they found it. It was trace evidence from soft tissue. That is a major difference. You haven't presented any evidence that indicates dinosaurs aren't tens of millions of years old.

The newgeology and creation.com aren't science based sources but creationist pseudoscience that can be ignored since you've asked this in a science section. You've also quote mined Dr Leakey and distorting her findings. All attempts to place human and dinosaur footprints in the same time frame have been proven, numerous times, to be frauds or grossly misinterpreted.

The three of five sources you cite that are science based disprove your point. If you'd actually read and/or comprehended them you'd know that.

Why don't you read the damn articles you cite? This isn't soft-tissue miraculously preserved for 67 million years; the tissue had decayed significantly. The authors, in their paper, say: "we present morphological, microscopic, and chemical evidence that these are indeed altered remnants of original cells." Only 15% of the "cells" they tested for DNA actually had any, and even in those the DNA had decayed so much they couldn't purify any of it.

There is no mention of C-14 in the paper. Dishonesty doesn't work.

Layer after layer of sediments show human remains to be only so far down. With those remains are the bones of animals we consumed. Dino bones are found much further down. All evidence leads to a mass extinction 65 million yrs. ago. Religious fanatics really need to give up attempting to prove a 6000 yr. old earth. I am starting to feel embarrassed for you guys. Why not go back to a flat earth, it is just as absurd.

1) Just to be clear, since the term "soft tissue" could be taken two different ways. Mary Schweitzer did not find any tissue that was soft in the T. rex fossil; all the tissues were hard, and it was only after being treated that some tissues became soft.

2) No DNA was found in the T. rex. DNA can survive thousands of years, but not millions.

3) No proteins were recovered from the T. rex. Only some short fragments of proteins were. Proteins can survive thousands of years, but not millions.

4) No scientist says that in the Laetoli rocks with Australopithecine footprints that there are dinosaur tracks. Those volcanic rocks date to only some 3.5 million years old. All (non-avian) dinosaurs were extinct for some 60+ million years before those tracks were made.

5) The link you provided to Smithsonian does not mention carbon-14 being found in the T. rex fossi, , or it supposedly dating to only a few thousand years. In fact, it says the T. rex is 68 million years old.

6) The link you provided to Nature does not mention carbon-14 being found in the T. rex fossil, or it supposedly dating to only a few thousand years. In fact, it says the T. rex is 68 million years old.

7) The link you provided to PhysOrg does not mention carbon-14 being found in the T. rex fossil, or it supposedly dating to only a few thousand years. In fact, it says the T. rex is 68 million years old.

8) “NewGeology”, which you provided a link to, is an anti-science, religious extremist Creationist site.

9) “Creation.Com”, which you provide a link to, is an anti-science, religious extremist Creationists site.

10) The only sources you gave that mentioned carbon-14 in the T. rex, and it supposedly being only thousands of years old, are anti-science, religious extremists sources.

11) Mary Schweitzer, the scientist whose work you are using to try to make your anti-science, religious point - says the T. rex is 68 million years old. Oh, and she is a Christian, not an atheist.

PS: If you are interested in actual science, then stop reading anti-science, religious extremist hokum.

Carbon dating is far from an exact science. All living things on this planet are a result of direct creation by God, no matter what is found in the fossilized bones of extinct animals. (Gen. 1) The age of certain animals is a matter of conjecture.

Evolution is proven to exist. I believe you are debating evolution versus Creation. I do believe that God created the Earth. But who says it could not have happened a billion years ago.