Carbon dating says dinosaurs are young

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. Are they being censored by youtube as well? A victim complex for having their incorrect theories challenged does nothing to prove them right. I'm not sure what chairmen you are referring to, but I suppose you are speaking of some scientific institution. It would not be sensible for them to publish studies on the impacts of smoking made by Marlboro, or environmental impact studies made by Exxon. Likewise, if fundamentalists try to nestle their pseudo-science into proper institutions, that should be scrutinized. Private lobbyists with a stated claim of what they are trying to "discover" do not belong in academia. 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. What I meant was simply that plenty of young earth creationists have made faulty studies, and therefore the argument of truth in numbers is not valid. Many of these have been elementary mistakes, as they are typically preachers while the competition are geologists and scientists. Your argument seems to rest on finding carbon 14 in every bone sample that has been tested. I don't think that is the case. Otherwise, it may very well be contamination. It would require extremely small amounts. Who performed the digg? Certainly religious groups or lobbyists are not given geological surveys, so they most likely got the fossils from a university or a museum, where they could have been laying in a dusty desk after being covered in some protective ointment. That would explain trace amounts of modern carbon. Like I said above, that is false... Well you have a scientific community against you, but if you can provide sufficient sources, I would gladly look over them. I disagree that radiometric dating is irrelevant, there is no point in talking about dating if we have no measure of time what so ever. If you can provide another dating method, we can follow that one instead. 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. I would argue that your assertion is completely backwards, these people are not scientists and they are not dependent. On their homepage you can not find out anything about who they are, from where they receive funding and on what premises. They also have several outlandish claims that can not be substantiated. That should raise some flags. Who knows what they have omitted, and how they are manipulating their findings, we don't know who is behind it. These specific data are an anomaly, and it could be worth doing further research. Charlatans like these should not be involved however.