timtofly said:
Is this not an assumption? Why does it have to be 65,000 years old? That is my question. You have seemed to conclude that no dinosaurs can be younger than that. Why?
My next point, to not leave you hanging, is the hypothetical I asked. What if a bone like that existed? Would it be dismissed as an abnormality and why?
Please don't say the mountain of evidence, I have already heard that answer. IMO it is conveniently hiding the....
No, it's not an assumption. It's not the case that no dinosaurs
can be younger than that, rather that we don't encounter any. If dinosaurs hadn't died out (or evolved into birds) I'm sure we'd still see many forms today. But we don't. Because they died. It's not like there's a restriction placed on the dating of dinosaur bones by us - the dating of dinosaur bones shows that they by and large went extinct 65,000,000.
For the longest time this was a huge mystery - the dinosaurs are prolific in the strata throughout 100,000,000 years. Then at 65,000,000 years ago there's a literal line in the rocks above which we don't find dinosaurs. Sure, there are some stray finds here and there, but it's nothing compared to the number of finds below that line. So scientists reach the conlcusion - based on that mountain of evidence you reject - that dinosaurs by and large went extinct 65,000,000 years ago.
If a dinosaur skeleton were found that seemed, from stratigraphic context, to be only 20,000,000 years old it would be pretty shocking. There would be a ton of justifiable skepticism, different teams would try and imagine ways of explaining this outlier, labs would test and re-test, hunting for sources of contamination.
But it certainly wouldn't overturn everything else we already know about the history of life on earth, the evolution and diversity of species, the fact we too evolved from ancestors with whom, if you go back far enough, we share common ancestors with every other living creature on earth today.