If dinosaur bones are estimated to be millions of years old, then how can the earth only be 6000 years old?

Question

Like this creationism stuff claims.

Answer 1

The earth is 4.6 billion years old.

Answer 2

Satanic blasphemer! Do you dare doubt the infallible words of the Holy Bible?!? That's all the evidence you need--if the bible says the earth is only 6000 years old, it should be good enough for you. But besides, how does anybody really know how old the dinosaurs were anyway? Were you there to see them?

And don't try to throw that radiometric dating stuff at us--that's completely unreliable anyway; scientists only guess about everything; it's not like they have any real answers.



(To make that idiotic rant a little more accurate it should probably have a few more spelling/grammar errors, and maybe I should have put it in all caps...)

(Edit: needanewstart.com is an idiot. I just can't say it any more politely than that. Radiometric dating is perfectly reliable and perfectly accepted by any and all legitimate scientists.)

Answer 3

It's not. Creationists are wrong. That's hardly debatable at this point. I can somewhat understand their skepticism to evolution and abiogenesis, but to postulate that the Earth is 6,000 years old is beyond intellectual dishonest.

In fact, supposing that the Earth is only a few dozen generations old is about as far fetched as you can get. You wouldn't be detaching yourself much further from reality if you believe the Earth is flat.

Answer 4

Fossils don’t come with labels telling you how old they are.

So, what about radiometric dating methods—don’t they prove millions of years? Well, these are far from infallible—they are indirect methods based on quite a few assumptions, and evolutionary geologists themselves will often not accept a radiometric date unless they think it’s correct (i.e. it matches what they already believe).

There are plenty of scientists who question their accuracy. For instance, the “RATE” project has discovered several striking examples of contradictions in these dating methods. If you want, you can get their book or movie called Thousands...Not Billions and learn about some of their remarkable results.

If you do a bit of research, you will find that there is a lot of evidence of radiometric dating not being accurate (like conflicting dates, or dates of millions of years for lava flows that occurred in the past few hundred years or even decades).

OK, is there evidence of younger dates for dinosaur fossils? Oh yeah (these are easy to look up).

In 1981, scientists identified unfossilized dinosaur bones which had been found in Alaska 20 years earlier. Dr. Philip Currie (an evolutionist) wrote about this and some similar finds, “An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.”

As Dr. Margaret Helder has said, “How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question. One thing is certain: they were not preserved by cold. Everyone recognizes that the climate in these regions was much warmer during the time when the dinosaurs lived.”

In 1990 a sample of various dinosaur bones were sent to the University of Arizona for a “blind” Carbon-14 dating procedure. “Blind” in the sense that they didn’t tell them what the bones were. The oldest date they got was 16 thousand years. Now I don’t think they are even that old, but that’s a far cry from the millions of years evolutionists suggest. If dinosaurs became extinct more than 65 million years ago, there should be no carbon-14 left in their bones. Evolutionist of course say the samples must have been contaminated.

In 1990, Scientists from the University of Montana found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized and even found what appeared to be blood cells in them. Dr. Mary Schweitzer said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. … The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” How indeed?

And then in 2005, they found an even greater discovery. Science Daily website said (March 25, 2005): “Dr. Mary Schweitzer . . . has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.” Here are some pictures of what they found.

As Dr. David Menton said, “It certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.” Wouldn’t that be a hit for the meat industry if we could figure out how to preserve meat for so long?

This evidence fits much better with Noah’s flood 4-5 thousand years ago, and a recent extinction of dinosaurs.

Answer 5

Ah, Grasshopper. You are wise beyond your years! Check out this lovely diorama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CreationMuseum15.png ) in the Creation Museum (http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ars-takes-a-field-trip-the-creation-museum.ars ) showing Eve sitting in a very sexy frock next to an over sized velociraptor.

I also love the photo of a parent boosting his child onto a saddled tricertops (http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/400/526893292_e95eb57c10.jpg ).

Answer 6

I think that the best answer would be is to remind you that they are both just estimations and not fact. The only way to prove carbon dateing is to know someone who is millions of years old who would say ya, I was there.

Answer 7

There are lots of things that are clearly older than 6,000 years. Young Earth Creationists need bigger and bigger lies as more old objects are discovered and the dating techniques are improved.

Answer 8

Of course there were no dinosaurs, and the bones found are just great big dog bones.

Answer 9

Creationists say that... The bible & science does not support the idea that this planet is but 6,000 year old.

Answer 10

I don't think anyone believes that anymore, not even fundies. It was claimed by one guy in the 1800's, so yeah.