447
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 327:
Line 327: + + + + + + + + +
→T-Rex soft tissue?
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
:You're still not seeing the picture. What if the dinosaurs fossils are less than 5,000 years old? You would get a carbon-dating result then, wouldn't you? Alternatively, what if you did a C14 test and got a result? It would mean that they were less than 60,000 years old, wouldn't it? It appears that your blind loyalty to the secular dating is preventing you from even understanding the alternative view that I'm trying to put. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:You're still not seeing the picture. What if the dinosaurs fossils are less than 5,000 years old? You would get a carbon-dating result then, wouldn't you? Alternatively, what if you did a C14 test and got a result? It would mean that they were less than 60,000 years old, wouldn't it? It appears that your blind loyalty to the secular dating is preventing you from even understanding the alternative view that I'm trying to put. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Secular dating? What's that? Is there religous dating of artifacts/fossils? Please explain. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 12:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Secular dating? What's that? Is there religous dating of artifacts/fossils? Please explain. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 12:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm sure they did try that on at least one dinosaur, besides, they used it on 10.000 years old human settlements.
Why would you want to carbon date a T-rex anyway?
It's just gonna give the +60.000 years old result, but then you'd just say carbon dating is flawed.
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]