just want to clear up a few things here.

For radiocarbon dating the sample can't really be contaminated once the sample dies, as you're measuring the amount of Carbon-14 in the sample, which can't be added to a dead sample as it is taken in as part of the respiratory process. 

It can be contaminated when the sample is alive though and these are the main concerns. Contamination with plants that have been alive since 1945 is one concern, as the are contaminated by nuclear weapons that have lead to the added production of carbon-14. But it shouldn't effect samples that died before that period as they weren't alive to breathe in the added Carbon-14 in the atmosphere.

The other main concern is with the carbon exchange reservoir, which, long story short, is that marine samples can be contaminated with old Carbon-14 samples from a sort of wash down effect, and this can lead carbon dating giving an older date.

But these contaminations are well understood, and scientists who are Carbon dating a sample will factor for these potential errors. Dating a sea snail born in 1950 is a real no no, dating a tree that died in 1900 should give reasonable accuracy.

And we know that the production of Carbon-14 is a pretty constant thing. It may vary slightly when affected by things such as increased solar activity, but scientists can tell within reasonable accuracy the suspected ratio of Carbon-14 to be found in a carbon sample. And furthermore, scientists can calibrate the dates with known samples of trees, which can provide accurate dates from the tree rings and dates from Carbon samples, which are compared for accuracy. We find that the dates match to within a reasonable amount.

Long story short. Yes, Carbon sample can be contaminated; and yes, carbon-14 production can vary with things like phases of solar activity. But those who do the dating are well aware of these problems and are able to produce a date within reasonable accuracy by accounting for these errors when they are dating. A scientist wouldn't date a sample they know could be contaminated.

Hope that cleared a few things up.

Liar. It wasn't "debunked". You apparently didn't read the webpage you provided a link to.

From your link:

"The finding sparked a strong response from the researchers who originally claimed to have found ancient dinosaur tissue. Schweitzer argues that there are significant holes in Kaye’s study, namely an explanation for why the protein in the tissue looks like that expected for a dinosaur. She added that her group has considered biofilms but has found no evidence for their presence. Errors in the current study “seem to underlie a fundamental misunderstanding of our work, our data and our interpretations,” Schweitzer commented to the press."

"Other researchers seem hesitant to make a definitive statement about the controversy. “It’s actually quite common to find biofilms in areas where fossils would be formed,” said Frank Corsetti, an earth scientist at USC who was not involved in the research. “It’s an interesting idea, but the jury is still out.”"

From DiscoveryMagazine.com

"When Schweitzer showed Horner the slide, she recalls, "Jack said, 'Prove to me they're not red blood cells.' That was what I got my Ph.D. doing." She first ruled out contaminants and mineral structures. Then she analyzed the putative cells using a half-dozen techniques involving chemical analysis and immunology. In one test, a colleague injected rats with the dinosaur fossil extract; the rodents produced antibodies that responded to turkey and rabbit hemoglobins. All the data supported the conclusion that the T. rex fossil contained fragments of hemoglobin molecules. "The most likely source of these proteins is the once-living cells of the dinosaur," she wrote in a 1997 paper."

And let's not forget, the world is 3 thousand years old!

Look.. can we all just agree that "The Flintstones" is actually a dramatized documentary and move on?

Scientifically challenged people like OoSnap will never admit being wrong, neither will Sarah Palin or all the other Nutjobs (which includes most of the staff of FoxNews). These people basically (my experience as a scientist) have a problem with the world that has become way too complex and now find comfort in attaching to some simple basic belief system and give up on critical thinking. Whether you think that the human brain is a god given thing or the result of a lengthy evolutionary path, there are always people like OoSnap that refuse to use their brain.

Prove it. I've never seen a single picture taken from the first 2,700 years of its existence.

I think the Earth was created some time around 1585 and the Illuminati started the counter at that number to confuse everyone and ultimately bring down the Catholic church.

IQ isn't about how smart you are. 

IQ is more a measurement of how well you can learn.

If you took someone with a 100 IQ, then took that same person and raised their IQ by 20 points.  The person with 120 IQ would be smarter.

Of course, there is no such thing as identical people... what with different situations, work ethics and even just locations and friends.

It's basically a measure of "how easy" it is for you.  Espiecally if you get a diverse test that tests all your different "IQ components".

For example, I have a very high IQ in most categories, makes it easy for me to learn.  However my spatial IQ sucks, actually below average I believe, makes it really tough to learn things related to that.

Espiecally considering how easy everything else comes, it makes it hard to put forth the needed effort.

As a result I can't draw worth shit and picture instructions are tough for me.  While if you explain the same thing verbally, or even let me figure it out myself... it's actually easier for me.

All IQ tests do is test your "natural" ability. 

I just chose that link because it showed both sides of the argument, and as I said that explanation has been accepted for other similar situations, and was proven to be true. There are other theories that explain the findings as well. 

And even if the samples are of real T-rex blood and cells that still doesn't mean that Dinosaurs co-existed with man. There are currently theories of fossilisation that would explain the cells lasting 65 million years, but those theories haven't yet been accepted yet as they have problems. But the T-rex cells could lead to those theories gaining ground. Even the scientists that made the discovery don't think that dinosaurs co-existed with man, they are just claiming that a form of fossilisation that was previously unknown had occurred preserving the cell structure for millions of years. Even they dated the samples to be millions of years old. 

*Dumbstruck*

Huh...

Screw video games, I clearly grew up in the wrong time period. Where the **** are my Dinosaurs?

Actually the explaination (IMO) is pretty simple. Nothing comes out of nothing. God created the universe. Take a look at this interesting article that explains my views on this subject very well

http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/does-god-exist

Please note, im not here to argue that God created the universe or that Big Bang is wrong, these are just my views on the "beginning" era. Im not trying to prove or disprove anything here.

Because everything cant come out of nothing. And by nothing, i really mean nothing. No time, no natural process of any kind, no life, no ANYTHING. Or are you assuming that God created the Big Bang which created the universe?