[DittoJed2]

I didn't say it refuted that it shouldn't be possible. I said that it refuted that is shouldn't be significant. It would be significant because it would at least add the possibility that dinosaurs are younger than suspected and the entire column is misdated. Wouldn't prove that it is, but would add that possibility.

[jennyp]

I didn't say it refuted that it shouldn't be possible. I said that it refuted that is shouldn't be significant. It would be significant because it would at least add the possibility that dinosaurs are younger than suspected and the entire column is misdated. Wouldn't prove that it is, but would add that possibility.

Like Junior said, this wouldn't even hint at calling the old ages of the oldest dinosaur fossils into doubt.

There's nothing in the Theory of Evolution that says "once a species has spawned a new species, the original species cannot live for long." Just like when a new tree branch grows off an existing branch, neither the old nor the new branch must stop getting longer.

[Ichneumon]

It would be significant because it would at least add the possibility that dinosaurs are younger than suspected and the entire column is misdated. Wouldn't prove that it is, but would add that possibility.

No it wouldn't. It would in no way change the evidence for known dinosaur fossils being old, nor would it in any way add evidence that they might be younger than they are.