Dinosaurs may not be as ancient as we think

Nile crocs eat grass like an ox?

I'm struggling to find any interest in this subject but it's most probably a description of an entirely fanciful creature of the kind often found in ancient mythology.

There's no question that the strata in which dinosaur remains are found are very different from those in which creatures alive in the last few million years are found. The two are distinct & separate but if dinosaurs had lived up until the last million years (say) then their remains would be mixed together.

This is one of the reasons we can be extremely confident that dinosaurs died out long before more modern species of animals.

 Please, humor me by answering this question after I have read the sources that you gave me to read...

What dinosaur could be described from this?

15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

What people were writing in the 5th. century BC regarding their religious beliefs should be of little concern to us. There's no practical probability that dinosaurs, as we recognise them, survived after about 65 million years ago - this is demonstrable fact!

Unless they didn't actually die out 65 million years ago. Unless nothing existed 65 million years ago...

Then show what's wrong with the standard techniques for dating rocks etc.?

Also, we're able to see the light from stars that are more than 65 million lightyears away. That's to say stars, the light from which has taken more than that length of time to travel to Earth!

Or it appears that they are 65 million years old... God could have made it with the appearance of age... 

Or perhaps Gandalf used his magic staff?

Ok, there is no magic used here. Now please, stop dodging my question. answer my question. What dinosaur do you think could be described by Job 40:15-24?

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Arthur Conan Doyle

You want to play the answer my question game? O/k, then what's being described is a mythical beast.

Now you answer the question of why we should believe dating techniques such as those based on long half-life isotopic decay, are so much in error? Scientists have spent most of the last century developing & refining such methods & they're regarded as being utterly reliable. Can you find a reputable (non-creationist) scientist that claims they're not?

And those dating techniques along with other ones show that the last dinosaurs died out over 60 million years ago, so there can be no question that they were all extinct long before our species evolved.

I asked my question first. What dinosaur is Job 40 describing? You can't dodge questions while debating. You have to answer questions in turn with one another. 

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth

"Job 40:15–24 describes Behemoth, and then the sea-monster Leviathan, to demonstrate to Job the futility of questioning God, who alone has created these beings and who alone can capture them.^[2] C. L. Patton lists several interpretations of the nature of these beasts, including the idea that they are chaos monsters destroyed by the deity at the time of creation.^[3]

Leviathan is identified figuratively with both the primeval sea (Job 3:8, Psalms 74:13) and in apocalyptic literature as the Devil, who has been around since before creation and will be defeated during the end times. In the divine speeches in Job, Behemoth and Leviathan may both be seen as composite and mythical creatures with enormous strength, which humans like Job could not hope to control. But both are reduced to the status of divine pets, with rings through their noses and Leviathan on a leash"

Since we're talking about the OT, can you find a single Rabbinic scholar who believes the reference is to a dinosaur like creature? You might expect them to know such things.

If not, perhaps you'd address my question now?

I meant describe it in your own words...

Here is an article from a NON-CHRISTIAN resource called LabMate... Never heard of it before, but it fits your criteria.

At least to the uninitiated, carbon dating is generally assumed to be a sure-fire way to predict the age of any organism that once lived on our planet. Without understanding the mechanics of it, we put our blind faith in the words of scientists, who assure us that carbon dating is a reliable method of determining the ages of almost everything around us. However, a little more knowledge about the exact ins and outs of carbon dating reveals that perhaps it is not quite as fool-proof a process as we may have been led to believe.

What is Carbon Dating?

At its most basic level, carbon dating is the method of determining the age of organic material by measuring the levels of carbon found in it. Specifically, there are two types of carbon found in organic materials: carbon 12 (C-12) and carbon 14 (C-14). It is imperative to remember that the material must have been alive at one point to absorb the carbon, meaning that carbon dating of rocks or other inorganic objects is nothing more than inaccurate guesswork.

All living things absorb both types of carbon; but once it dies, it will stop absorbing. The C-12 is a very stable element and will not change form after being absorbed; however, C-14 is highly unstable and in fact will immediately begin changing after absorption. Specifically, each nucleus will lose an electron, a process which is referred to as decay. This rate of decay, thankfully, is constant, and can be easily measured in terms of ‘half-life’.

Half-life refers to the amount of time it takes for an object to lose exactly half of the amount of carbon (or other element) stored in it. This half-life is very constant and will continue at the same rate forever. The half-life of carbon is 5,730 years, which means that it will take this amount of time for it to reduce from 100g of carbon to 50g – exactly half its original amount. Similarly, it will take another 5,730 years for the amount of carbon to drop to 25g, and so on and so forth. By testing the amount of carbon stored in an object, and comparing to the original amount of carbon believed to have been stored at the time of death, scientists can estimate its age.

So what’s the Problem?

Unfortunately, the believed amount of carbon present at the time of expiration is exactly that: a belief, an assumption, an estimate. It is very difficult for scientists to know how much carbon would have originally been present; one of the ways in which they have tried to overcome this difficulty was through using carbon equilibrium.

Equilibrium is the name given to the point when the rate of carbon production and carbon decay are equal. By measuring the rate of production and of decay (both eminently quantifiable), scientists were able to estimate that carbon in the atmosphere would go from zero to equilibrium in 30,000 – 50,000 years. Since the universe is estimated to be millions of years old, it was assumed that this equilibrium had already been reached.

However, in the 1960s, the growth rate was found to be significantly higher than the decay rate; almost a third in fact. This indicated that equilibrium had not in fact been reached, throwing off scientists’ assumptions about carbon dating. They attempted to account for this by setting 1950 as a standard year for the ratio of C-12 to C-14, and measuring subsequent findings against that.

Has it Worked?

In short, the answer is… sometimes. Sometimes carbon dating will agree with other evolutionary methods of age estimation, which is great. Other times, the findings will differ slightly, at which point scientists apply so-called ‘correction tables’ to amend the results and eliminate discrepancies.

Most concerning, though, is when the carbon dating directly opposes or contradicts other estimates. At this point, the carbon dating data is simply disregarded. It has been summed up most succinctly in the words of American neuroscience Professor Bruce Brew:

“If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date, we just drop it.”

What does this mean for Contemporary Carbon Dating?

Essentially, this means that carbon dating, though a useful tool, is not 100% reliable. For example, recently science teams at the British Antarctic Survey and Reading University unearthed the discovery that samples of moss could be brought back to life after being frozen in ice. The kicker? That carbon dating deemed the moss to have been frozen for over 1,500 years. Now, if this carbon dating agrees with other evolutionary methods of determining age, the team could have a real discovery on their hands. Taken alone, however, the carbon dating is unreliable at best, and at worst, downright inaccurate.

Take note of this quote:

 "Taken alone, however, the carbon dating is unreliable at best, and at worst, downright inaccurate."

Haven't I done that several times? It's clearly to me a description of something invented, a mythical creature & that's all!

How many more times do I need to repeat this?

Now address my question .....!

I'm not clear why the subject of Carbon dating has been introduced at all? The isotopes used to date the age of fossilised remains have nothing to do with Carbon & are not organic as far as I'm aware.

But who is the author of that article & do you have a link?

https://www.labmate-online.com/news/news-and-views/5/breaking-news/how-accurate-is-carbon-dating/30144