Re: Dinosaurs dated at thousands, not millions of years old

Then say what you mean!

First you said bones were carbon dated, then you had to backpedal and claim that they were dated by uranium -- the wrong uranium, I might add. Now you're telling me that it wasn't the bones you meant, but it was the rock strata around the bones.

How can you be so imprecise yet try to impugn the credibility of others with ad hominem attacks? Oh, I know how. It's called "hypocrisy".

The simple fact is that the two dating methods conflict with one another. If it was a dinosaur bone found in strata that are dated to millions of years old using a uranium dating technique, and yet the bone itself is dated to 30,000 years old using carbon dating, then at least one assumption somewhere is wrong and it needs / they need to be discarded. Simple science. Simple logic, really. Heaven forbid we should challenge our assumptions. We might have to admit that we weren't and aren't omniscient or something, and our arrogance is far more important than actually pursuing the truth, no?

Just in case it's not obvious, that last bit was sarcasm. Tweet