As for the age of this fossil (it's not still bone), there are several tests, radiometric and otherwise, which can help narrow down the time frame.
None of those tests suggest anything more recent than Cretaceous Age over 65 million years ago.
Of course, our science-deniers (they are not “skeptics”) have a long list of bogus “facts” they like to throw out on these threads, to confuse the unwary and make science appear less scientific than it is.
Some of us enjoy pointing out errors in science-deniers’ claims.
I have 2 degrees in Science.
Science is ALWAYS in flux, as new information has to be accounted for.
It is something like elastic. A theory is held, and generally accepted. Meanwhile, facts pile up that contravene that theory, but are derided, or ignored. This continues until well past the point where it is obvious to the unbiased observer that the original supposition is wrong. (This is due to human nature being resistant to change).
The point is that Scientists who are correct have been (over hundreds of years) derided as quacks when in fact they were correct. Take a look at any biography of Pasteur. He is pivotal in the advancement of Vaccination and Pasteurization, and the germ/virus theory.
Did you know at the time Pasteur was derided as a quack? He was in fact, disbarred from the leading Scientific Society at the time! His crime? Disagreeing with the “Established Fact” of the Theory of Spontaneous Generation. His experiments absolutely, on a reputable basis, destroyed the theory of Spontaneous Generation. You see, his Pasteurization process could not work if, according to SG, life would just “spring up” again in the sealed jar.
As silly as it sounds, the whole of science believed in spontaneous generation, that in effect, horse hairs could turn into worms.
Pasteur took the news of disbarment, and then set about making millions on his Pasteurization process. Also, he developed vaccinations that saved millions of lives.
So much for “settled science”.....If you are a true scientist, there is no “settled science”.
We are living in an age where this sort of political persecution is popular again - nobody wants to discuss facts/observations they want to paint their opponent as a quack and thereby dismiss the argument.
This does NOT serve the purpose of Science.
As to the age of bones, let me ask a single question now.
How do collagen and red blood cells survive in situ intact and viable (i.e. dead, but not mineralized) inside bones that have been radiocarbon dated to 70, 80, 90 Million years?
When I get an answer (even an attempt to answer) that question, then I will concede that radio carbon dating is correct.....As for now, I trust something I can see with my eyes and a microscope.
In other words, I do not think tissue can exist temperature for tens of millions of years. As to what this implies, make your own theory.
See what happens to real scientists when they report repeatable observations. (60 Minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji2cvuJ1mYg