I know you want me to say that dinosaur bones are definitely less than 6000 years old, but I don't think that. My skepticism of Darwinism is rooted in science, not religion.
If you've followed this thread, then you know that dinosaur bones have been carbon dated to thousands not millions of years. Now why is it that carbon dating is no good for dinosaur bones? It's supposedly because carbon based life decays away to nothing in mere thousands of years, not millions.
Hold the phone though! Now you are telling me that all the science about carbon decay rates is wrong, and that actually carbon based tissue can last millions of years!
So then the carbon dating of dinosaur bones must be wrong for some other reason right? Because it can't possibly be right or else that would mean YOU are wrong, and that is impossible, right? So radiometric dating is gospel, but carbon dating is worthless, is that what you're saying? We should not trust the carbon dating of dinosaur bones because we already KNOW that they are millions of years old so instead we should just date rocks nearby and ASSUME they are the same age as the fossils?
That is the problem with Darwinists, they rely on assumptions, circular reasoning, and huge non-sequitur logical leaps.
You are not willing to go where science leads you, your conclusion is predetermined and you exclude any evidence to the contrary. That's not science.
So you don't know how old they are, but you know for sure they can't be 65 million years old, because you know soft tissue can't last 65 million years, though you won't say how you know that. Got it.
I know you want me to say that dinosaur bones are definitely less than 6000 years old, but I don't think that.
No, wasn't waiting for that. What I was going to ask you, no matter what figure you gave (unless it was like 100 years), was how you knew soft tissue could last that long but not 65 million years.
If you've followed this thread, then you know that dinosaur bones have been carbon dated to thousands not millions of years.
Well, I know that one group of creationists claims to have done that but haven't (apparently) published their work or made it available to others to try and duplicate.
Now you are telling me that all the science about carbon decay rates is wrong, and that actually carbon based tissue can last millions of years!
The "carbon decay rate" involved in carbon dating has nothing to do with the degradation of carbon-based tissue. You're revealing a rather poor understanding of how these dates are arrived at.
we should just date rocks nearby and ASSUME they are the same age as the fossils?
You claim your skepticism of Darwin is rooted in science, but you don't show much of a scientific approach to these problems. As I said before, do you have a specific criticism of the principle of superposition or of radiometric dating of rocks? If not, what's your problem with ASSUMING that if a fossil is on top of a rock of age x and under a rock of age y, its age is between x and y?
You are not willing to go where science leads you, your conclusion is predetermined and you exclude any evidence to the contrary.
Hundreds of years of science have led to our understanding of how old the rocks are and how old the fossils are. I think it's foolish to discard all that on the basis of one surprising finding. (And frankly, to me, it's never been all that surprising. A few tiny scraps of collagen still present in the interior of a long-buried bone? Big deal.)