Perry:
I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but why must we or anyone else insist upon a literalist interpretation of the book of Genesis? Not even Jehovah's Witnesses insist that dinosaurs died only a few thousand years ago. Why can't we concede that the timlines in Genesis could possibly be figurative?
I would argue that the evidence that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago far outweighs the evidence that they died thousands of years ago. One of the methods of dating fossils is by identifying the geological strata that they were located in. Geological strata can be just as accurate as tree rings in certain instances. Various layers with their unique deposits can be matched up with layers from that same time period thousands of miles away (this has been verified by ancient volcanic ash spread out over thousands of miles; yet found in the same geological layer). I know that some fossils have been deposited in strata that was burried under layers that they were able to identify as millions of years old.
However, if one was to argue that the global flood of Genesis somehow created this geological phenomenon whereby bones were fossilized under drastic condtions, then that is a completely different discussion. From what I gather in this thread, you believe the flood account of Genesis was an actual historical event. I personally, do not. (A discussion of the Genesis flood account might be more appropriate under a different thread). However, I respect that this is your thread; and you can certainly do with it what you want.
From what I have observed, there seems to be a deeply ingrained misconception in many people about the scientific process, and how conclusions are reached in the scientific community. I have noticed that JWs and other fundamentalists seem to believe that anyone working in the field of archeology or paleontology has a pre-established bias against the Bible that constantly influences the way they date fossils. Many fundamentalists seem to believe that scientists just arbitrarily reach conclusions based upon a conscious effort to contradict the Bible. If this were so, they would have been corrected in revised research - much in the same way that newer archeological discoveries proved certain OT accounts to be accurate. When it comes to dating fossils, there are actually many methods that are used in tandem; not just one single method. Several methods are used to come to a more accurate dating of the fossil instead of one arbitrarily chosen by the researcher.
What many seem to overlook is the extreme competative nature of the scientific community. "Half-assing" one's research just won't cut it. There are too many of their peers who would only be too willing to point out their slopiness and lack of integrity. All significant findings are carefully catalogued and chronicled in peer-reviewed journals where others in the field go over their findings with a fine-tooth comb. These scientists are constantly competing for grants, and if one of them is discovered to be lying or cheating on their research, their career is essentially over.
I find it strange that so many fundamentalists seem to think that there is a massive conspiracy among archeologists to "prove the Bible wrong". This just isn't the case. They are more interested in proving their counterparts wrong by pointing out the flaws in their research methods. I am sure that if the evidence clearly showed that dinosaurs died thousands of years ago, rather than millions, there would have been a paradigm shift where the evidence would begin to be published. This just hasn't been the case.
The point is, a scientist just doesn't have the luxury to allow personal preferences and biases to influence thier published research. Those that do so, are eventually embarrassed by those in their field who have reviewed their work and have found it wanting. There are plenty of people in their field who would be more than happy to knock them off of their pedestal. In short, the scientific process a self-correcting process.
