Carbon dating says dinosaurs are young

You: I couldn't find a link to the publishing article this was extrapolated from, and this is not an attempt to muddy the water (the source you provided may be completely valid and I'm not trying to achieve guilt by association) but there have been creation scientists who have been disproven. This is more of a comment concerning the wording in the article you posted, saying that other findings corroborate their claims without really giving examples. Answer: In the link I provided, you can find a picture containing some of the data from this research along with e-mail addresses and other information relevant. Here you can see it: http://newgeology.us... and the talk organization can be seen here: http://newgeology.us... but the video has since been removed by the chairmen, this I find very disturbing and I take it as a serious move against the advancement of science, namely, the censorship of laboratory data which seems to disagree with the consensus -- re-calling that open discussion and disagreements is what advances science. ______________________________________ You: Some have not known that rock can in fact contain carbon as well, and therefore been convinced that the bones are not fossiles, using bad samples with shellac and other contaminations. "The so-called "dates" are meaningless numbers which give the age of a mixture of organic detritus and preservatives which contaminated the fossils. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the age of any dinosaurs."(1) Answer: I don't understand what you are trying to bring forth here by talking about rocks containing carbon, I can't tell whether my understanding has fallen for the moment or whether you have not explained yourself well enough. Then, the statement given in your reference (1) seems to be concerned about contamination, which could have been a problem if this was one bone from one laboratory, but these results published on the website are many bones from different locations tested in different states, using state-of-the-art equipment to avoid contamination and taking every precaution. Therefore, contamination seems extremely unlikely. If that is the only explanation you (the opposition) have then I would consider your case extremely weak. ______________________________________ You: There is a very strong consensus on the age of dinosaurs. This is because they have managed to verify, by countless separate methods that dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago. They track countless isotopes, that all converge around that period. They measure rock samples and do chemical analysis, and a bunch of methods I don't understand. Answer: Like I said above, that is false. I am very familiar with radiometric dating and I know for a fact that the assumption of constant is false, the decay rate is altered by heat and pressure, by solar flares and high amounts of He in various hard crystals support the idea that the decay rates are unstable. Then, the ages assigned to the various eras, contrary to what many believe, have not come from radiometric dating; they have been pulled out of the blue sky by influtential figures in the 19th and 20th century. I and many others have tested the assumed agreement between the various ages assigned to eras and radiometric dating by sending rock samples to laboratories without giving them the information necessary to rule out certain results, and they don't agree at all. You can google this practice and you'll see how many examples of this there are. In any case, I would love to have another debate with you about this, but in this debate, we discuss 'carbon dating' and whether or not it supports the idea that dinosaurs lived recently and not in the distant past. ______________________________________ You: My last argument is of a different nature. I'm not sure who published this but New Geology, the e-mail domain, doesn't seem to exist on wikipedia and their highly 90's looking homepage also "debunks" plate tectonics, evolution, and discusses however God allows evil. (4) I'm not saying you should ignore people because they are religious, but if they are emotionally invested in find evidence of a young earth they will not be rational or truthful to themselves or others. These people are not scientists, they are firebrands. While they may use certain sciency-sounding words, they make the first mistake you can make - they start out by trying to prove what they are already convinced is the case. Answer: I don't care who is behind newgeology.us, what I care about is the data that they provide. Scientists don't dismiss data if the data comes from a person they personally disagree with, scientists always examine data regardless of the sender, and that is how science works -- it's independent. ______________________________________