From Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/28/flying-dinosaur-reptile-pterosaur-texas/
A new, Ptoothy Pterodactyl which was unearthed in Ptexas in 2006, is now being reported. Of course, such discoveries are always assigned an evolutionary age of millions and millions of years. Question: How do they know how old it is? Answer: They don’t – it’s assumed. You can’t date sedimentary rocks using radiometric dating methods, but usually there’s biomatter in dinosaur bones – which does mean it can be carbon dated.
Herein lies the problem: C14 (Carbon 14) dating methods always return ages of between 5,000 years old and 50,000 years old, no matter the alleged “age” of the fossil bone, oil, coal, natural gas, CO2 from gas wells, etc… All of these examples are supposed to be many millions of years old, which means they should have ZERO C14 in them. The fact that they have plenty tells you right off the bat they are not millions of years old, they are only a few thousand years old.
Further to this, did you ever notice that the fossil record only shows two things: Extinction, and stasis. I don’t think I need to explain extinction, but I will point out that this does not help evolution one bit – extinction is a loss of variety, a loss of a species, not a gain as evolution needs.
Stasis is an organism remaining the same over alleged millions of years. The Coelacanth is a classic example. The Bible says (ten times in the first chapter of Genesis) that God created everything to reproduce after its kind. Evolution has organisms changing over time. Stasis is what we find in the fossil record, not change – and I give a few examples of this in part 10 of “The Complete Creation” video series, available for viewing for free on the complete creation website:
Actually, this pterosaur fossil was dated based on ammonite biostratigraphy, not carbon dating. And ammonite biostratigraphy isn’t based on carbon dating, either. It’s based on the dating of ash beds, which can be done using a variety of isotopes (K–Ar, Rb–Sr, Sm–Nd).
Hey Jordan,
Thanks for the comment, but you completely missed the point: I never said it was dated using C14. The dating was achieved using evolutionary *assumptions* (in this case, as you say, “biostratigraphy”, which is based on evolutionary assumptions, not radiometric dating, because in the end, the evolutionarily assigned ages trump the radio dates, which shows that the radiodates are only accepted when they support evolutionary assumptions). What I said was that whenever C14 dating is applied to dinosaur bones, it always returns a date of between 5,000 and 50,000 years old. Undoubtedly this pterodactyl would be no exception.