Does evolution contradict carbon dating?Do dinosaur bones show the origin of blood can't come from evolution ?

Evolution has no answer from where blood originated.How it came to be for science to study it.

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.

The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

The recent story, which has been all over the web about the T-rex with soft tissue in its femur, has really caused some excitement. This may be the same T-rex that Jack Horner excavated a few years ago that was reported to have red blood cells in it. Taylor noticed it had a Museum Of The Rockies number, suggesting that it was one of a half dozen T-rexes found in Montana.

So now they are saying the material was biofilm "slime". Of course that is obviously false from simply looking at the vessels and blood cells (with hemoglobin), coupled with the fact the alleged "slime" was spread uniformly, and not dripping toward the bottom as gravity would cause if it was slime.

I'm sure that most die-hard evolutionists will just conclude that this only proves that dinosaur soft tissue can last for 65 million years. Where is the bench test results that support their Claim?

How can we get to from random chemicals to the formation of blood, being the life source that travels in our veins. Did the plants know they were to give off oxygen so that our blood could use it?
Carbon dating is a good dating tool for some things that we know the relative date of. Something that is 300 years old for example. But it is far from an exact Science.
In 1949 Libbey knew that atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years. Because he assumed that the earth was millions of years old, he believed it was already at equilibrium. However each time they test it, they find more c14 in the atmosphere, and have realized that we are only 1/3 the way to equilibrium. It means that based on c14 formation, the earth has to be less than 1/3 of 30,000 years old. This would make the earth less than 10,000 years old!
Dating methods are based on 3 unprovable and questionable assumptions:

1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time.
2). That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes
3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount .
Caboose..
I like your link...And already read it before. I see you answered this question quite blindly....
"The most primitive blood cell may have been a protohemocyte"

Ohhh yeah that proves it....

*primitive blood cell may have *

Amazing how people ignore what they read .
CB...You also gave a dead link as another person did.

You might want to get off yours and find real proof to substantiate your claims

I read this on a website but is it reliable evidence or not?

That dinosaurs are not nearly 65 million years old. ill post it here...

evidence that dinosaur bones are not millions of years old. Scientists from Montana State University found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized. Sections of the bones were like fresh bone and contained what seems to be blood cells and hemoglobin. If these bones really were tens of millions of years old, then the blood cells and hemoglobin would have totally disintegrated.26 Also, there should not be “fresh” bones if they were really millions of years old.27 A report by these scientists stated the following:

A thin slice of T. rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope ... . The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center ... . Red blood cells? The shape and location suggested them, but blood cells are mostly water and couldn’t possibly have stayed preserved in the 65-million-year-old tyrannosaur ... . The bone sample that had us so excited came from a beautiful, nearly complete specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex unearthed in 1990 ... . When the team brought the dinosaur into the lab, we noticed that some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized ... . So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, “Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues.”

t-rex dna... this is asked only to those who know.(its a lot to read, dont hurt me).........?

A tyranosaurus rex skeleton was dug up in montana not too long ago. ..
The femur bones were too big to be air lifted out so they cut them in half and flew them back to the lab. When they got there, they did an autopsy on the inside of the bone. They found red blood cells and other soft tissue within the bone... they found so much material that they could conclude that the dinosaur was a female and probably pregnant. Now, riddle me this... THEY STILL THINK THE DINOSAUR WAS 68 MILLION YEARS OLD?!?!?! COME ON the evidence is looking them straight in the face and all they can say is, "wow this is amazing"... Now, it should be obvious that this dinosaur WAS NOT millions of years old- it was thousands, which means that this is alone is a sustainable basis that dinosaurs and people could have very well coexisted, and I am convinced they did... Take for example the ancient egyptions, one of the greatest civilizations at the time, took extensive measures to preserve their royalty once they had died. The process of mumificaion was taken very seriously, and quite frankly, they were pros at it, esp for their time. Now, how long did those mummies last until now? A few mesely thousand years and they're almost completely dust- and now we find this dinosaur in almost better condition and we stick to our guns that its millions of years old...
Food for thought:
Nucleic acids have limited life expectancies under physiological conditions, and DNA is particularly susceptible to oxidative and hydrolytic damage. This rapid degradation was one of the arguments the defense used to discount the blood evidence in O.J. Simpson’s famous double-murder trial. I really am frustrated with todays scientists... please tell me why they wont even consider coming clean to the public and confessing that this is thousands of years old? If they have DNA (which they do) then that means that the dinosaur was not completly fossilized, if it was fossilized at all. Perhaps my question after all this rediculous rambling (yes I know, I'm sorry) is WHY?!?!?!

Atheists: How do you explain this?

In 1990 biologist Mary Schweitzer discovered soft tissue-including blood vessels and even whole cells when it was necessary to break a supposedly 65 million-year-old tyrannosaurus rex huge thigh bone that was found in Montana's Hell Creek Formation. Schweitzer said that the vessels were flexible and some could even be squeezed. After extensive testing, there was confirmation that this T. rex bone even had hemoglobin (red blood cells). This was surprising because the blood should have completely disintegrated if the bones were really 65 million years old.[71,76]

This discovery is unexplained by evolutionary thinking, which suggests that millions and millions of years have passed since this "King of Dinosaurs" met its demise. Schweitzer is puzzled and cannot understand why this bone was not mineralized. "It's very amazing. It's utterly shocking, actually, because it flies in the face of everything we understand about how tissues and cells degrade," she said on MSNBC.[76]

On the BBC's Science In Action programme* she said, "This is fossilized* bone in the sense that it's from an extinct animal but it doesn't have a lot of the characteristics of what people would call a fossil. It still has places where there are no secondary minerals, and it's not any more dense than modern bone; it's bone more than anything."[71]

In 1995, Joe Taylor, a professional dinosaur excavator and a biblical creationist, was curious about the hip girdle of another T. Rex that was found in 1916. It was found in the same Hell Creek Formation where Schweitzer's T. rex bone was found. Taylor was amazed that this 65 million-year-old specimen still had the appearance of skin on the sacral vertebrae. He sent a sample to Azusa Pacific College in California and had it scanned with an electron microscope by Professor Mark Annitage, who found that the bone had collagen filaments intact inside the bone.[76]

The presence of collagen suggests that this supposedly 65 million year old fossil was not completely fossilized. Annitage states, "It can't be but a few thousand years old."[76]

Since unfossilized dinosaur bones are being found more commonly, and frozen mammoths with flesh still on the bones are well-known, it has become impossible for evolutionists to deny the discoveries. So, they see without seeing. That is, they proclaim it to be a previously unknown form of fossilization, or simply accept the fact that organic material can survive for millions of years given the proper conditions.[71]