Carbon dating says dinosaurs are young

"The point is, there should be exactly zero atoms of C-14 inside the bones if the dinosaurs went extinct 100,000 years ago, not to mention 70,000,000 years ago -- and therefore, I have to conclude that it had to be younger than that, since C-14 is found inside." I understand. I appreciate you took the time to explain about contamination, since that seems to be the most relevant point in that case. As the amount of detectable carbon is halved every 5700 year, you could be down to a few thousand, or even a few hundred isotopes. In other words if it originally had 100 000 isotopes, it would have 97 after 57 000 years. As that is an extremely low number, a small contamination that may have not been relevant in a normal test can skew it completely. 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. 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) 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. It's news when they may have to adjust that by 1%. (2) 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. (3) The point is that they all match up. If one method, used primarily for a completely different purpose, gives a diffuse reading that should probably be discarded at that point. It could be worth to check closer into, but certainly not something you should change any predictions over and especially not totally revolutionary findings. 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. 1: http://www.fleming-group.com... 2: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org... 3: http://australianmuseum.net.au... 4: http://www.newgeology.us...