Some folks are going to look at the evidence and see "65 million" year old skin, blood vessels and hemoglobin parts....because it fits into their belief system.
...and some folks are going to read an old passage in a fictional book written 2000 years ago and see "dinosaurs" between the lines, because it fits into their belief system.
You know what doesn't change? Math. 1 + 1 = 2. Do you know how radiometric dating works? Do you really know, or have you dismissed it as flawed becasue it doesn't fit into your belief system? Do you know the methods, what the researchers look for, and how radioactive decay works? If you've dismissed it, please tell how you came to that conclusion and what particular part of the method you find flawed.
If you do.. then you know it's a matter of math. There are outside influences to consider, sure - but they can be considered, and won't change the results by several orders of magnitude. Do you think an old man-made book about talking snakes and magic fruit disproves the half-life of carbon-14 somehow?
That fossil you presented is 80 million years old. Fossils are interesting because they do defy the natural tendency for things to decay - just like preserving food can make things last much longer. Most dinosaur bones rotted millions of years ago as you'd expect they would. Some were preserved by chance. This isn't a complex concept to grasp (for most people, anyway).
If you want to be deluded fine. But that doesn't mean every viewpoint involves faith or delusion. Science is about finding facts and supporting evidence - not things to beleive in. We say that fossil is 80 million years old be cause the facts support it. It's position in the rock and the amount of carbon decay provide strong, calculated evidence. Another lab across the world can perform the same carbon tests and come out with the same general timeframe without collaberation.
On the other hand, give the bible to two different people, and they'll come up with two very different interpretations.
- Lime
