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
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."
Like I said, there is a long list of bogus "facts" which science-deniers like yourself post on these threads to confuse the unwary in hopes of discrediting science itself.
The truth of this matter is that there are any number of reports of ancient life surviving into modern times.
One that comes to mind as especially credible is apparently dead bacteria buried for hundreds of millions of years in underground salt deposits, which when water is added immediately come back to life and happily continue just where they left off, before their "long winter's nap".
Another were reports of Jurassic Park style DNA found in amber incrusted insects.
Another were reports of dinosaur collagen found, iirc, in "Sue".
What all of these reports have in common is, they are all disputed, and in the case of Jurassic Park style DNA, thoroughly debunked.
But they do suggest that under certain, very ideal natural conditions, some basic organic material may survive millions of years.
But just so we're clear on this point: no shred of ancient DNA has ever been recovered older than, say, Neanderthals -- circa 40,000 years ago.
As for your fervent desire to deny the science of radiometric dating, that can only be a function of your anti-science beliefs, and has nothing to do with Louie Pasteur's 19th century scientific discoveries -- all of which he proved to the satisfaction of the many scientists who repeated his experiments.
None of your anti-science claims has ever been "proved" to anyone's satisfaction.