lol...you are kidding, right? Why would scientists use carbon dating to date dinosaurs? Carbon dating is only accurate up to a few thousand years...evolutionists say dinosaurs are 65+ million years old....why would they even bother using carbon dating...and for you to suggest they have in masse is false.....please prove me wrong.

OK, you're talking about me not having credibility, and yet you claim that thousands of dinosaur bones have been carbon dated reliably?

Do you not know that carbon dating has an upper limit of about 60,000 years?

If you had any idea what you're talking about, or at least bothered to look it up, instead of just being another fanboi, you'd know that little datum.

Carbon dating dinosaur bones is silly. Carbon dating does not work that far back. It can't. The theory is that the proportion of C14 to C12+C13 is a reliable indicator of age, because once the organism is dead, it's no longer ingesting more C14. So C14 is assumed to be a fixed quantity, which breaks down with a half-life of a little under 6,000 years. After about 10 or so half-life iterations, it gets difficult to detect C14. After about 40 or so half-life iterations (let's say 240,000 years), the amount of C14 is for all intents and purposes a big fat zero. That's less than one-trillionth of the concentration as the atmosphere was at the time of organism death.

Lacking Star Trek tricorders, we're not likely to detect C14 levels back even a quarter million years ago, to say nothing of 65,000,000 years or more ago.

There are many possibilities for why the sample read only 30,000 years old or so.

The sample could have been tainted. Assumptions about the nature of radioactive decay and particularly of half-lives may be faulty (we assume it's a constant, but...). Perhaps it was misidentified as a dinosaur bone. Etc., etc., etc. It is, however, an interesting result, in that a real scientist confronted with something that is obviously a contradiction to established scientific dogma should be interested in unraveling this particular thread. Maybe it's an easily explained issue. Or maybe we might learn something completely new and unexpected.

As long as we just get into stupid political fights trying to maintain our respective viewpoints instead of pursuing the lead, however, we continue to stagnate.

Quit believing in Science. Science doesn't need believers. Science needs disbelievers. If we only keep proving what we already know, when do we advance?