#[3] that was an excellent reply ***Hat tip!***. There is a mountain of evidence that points to fossils being much younger than we are being told. There is also a curious lack of radio carbon dating on the “Dino meat” inside the bones. I wonder what they would find? Thank you very much for you informative reply. Cheers!
We can learn from soft tissues found in dinosaur fossils is that these fossils aren't as old as we are told.
Radiometric dating isn't very accurate. When they use different radiometric pairs, they get different dates. When they test rocks of known ages, the radiometric dating ages are massively older. Some examples are:
Mount St Helens: 10 year old rock "measured to be 340,000 years
Mount Etna: 29 year old rock "measured to be 350,000 years
Mount Stromboli: 38 year old rock "measured to be 2.4 million years
Kilauea: < 200 year old rock "measured to be 21 million years
The problem with radiometric dating is it is based on several assumptions that are not proven to be true. They assume the starting conditions (usually 100% parent isotopes and 0% daughter isotopes) even though they weren't there and can't verify this. If they knew the starting conditions they would already know the age and not need the calculation. This assumption is not reasonably certain.
It also assumes that zero parent and daughter isotopes ever enter or exit the sample. Since most of the isotopes are water soluble, they can be washed into and out of the sample changing the calculated age because water can and does infiltrate almost all rocks. This assumption also is not reasonably certain.
It also assumes a constant decay rate. There is evidence, due to radio-halos, that there are some conditions that can speed up the decay rate (evidence that it was faster in the past). This is an article I found quickly on the subject. There are many others. Some may be better. https://www.icr.org/article/radiohalos-significant-exciting-research-results
The assumption of constant decay rate is the most likely of the 3, but is still questionable.
Ages based on radiometric dating cannot be trusted. They are the only strong evidence of old age for fossils and they are not reliable at all. Due to physics we know the absolute max age, under perfectly ideal conditions, for organic compounds like collagen to survive, is about 100,000 years. Therefore the age of these fossils has to be less than that and likely significantly less because where on Earth, outside of a lab, do you ever find ideal conditions?
#grownostr #youngearth #realscience
Discussion
I think they would find plenty of C14. They don't look because their preconceived ideas don't allow for any to be present. I think they also don't want to risk being proven wrong.