There is no reliable way to determine the age of an object older than 200 years. Carbon dating is only accurate if the carbon absorption levels are known in a given region at a given time. What makes it useless is that the carbon absorption levels have been shown to vary widely within the last 200 years.

Carbon dating is understood to be useless in the field of archeology and paleontology. What is used instead is relative positioning of fossils in the geological stratum in relation to the assumed required age of the earth necessary to grant a remote possibility to chance creating the wide variety of species. (A youngish earth under several billion years old would not provide enough time/chance).

Because dinosaurs are typically found deeper in the geologic layers than creatures believed to be much more recently evolved, dinosaurs are approximated at the age +60 million years. Total speculation of course.

Measuring the actual age is not possible.

Dean, Delray, FL

I didn't think Carbon 14 dating was even accurate beyond several thousand years. Is this really how they determined the age. I think not.

Tim Sonmoe, Montgomery, TX

Amazing, that blind faith and refusal to face the reality we inhabit still lead people to the dead-end of creationism. They accept all the products of science - computers, internet, microwaves, aircraft, and yet still can't grasp the truth of evolution. Instead, they turn to some tedious fantasy derived from an old collection of books, of uncertain authorship, that are mutually contradictory, at points demonstrably wrong, and often written by semi-literate rabble-rousers. What a marvellous basis for a life!

nick, Boston , USA

I'm staggered that real people can actually believe in this fairytale God/creationism theory that supposedly happened only 6000 years ago when China has 10,000+ years of written history. Guess we should all just dismiss that little tidbit.

Michelle, Crowley, TX

What a hoot! All these "experts" comments. And the evidence that this creature is 60+ MM years old as opposed to say 6000?

Dick, Berryville, VA

Creationism is completely valid - unless you obsess on trying to fit it into a 4 thousand year old time frame.

So what? God took awhile to create things! It's only a blink of an eye to Him, eh?

Hidebound Christians, enmeshed in literalness, provide plenty of sport for atheistic "all happened by chance and accident" nutjobs.

Larry Sobocinski, Windsor, Canada

I think that 67 million years may be a bit conservative. This particular dinorsaur is certain to have lived 64 million years ago; which would explain why it is preserved so well. Anything beyond 65 million years is sure to have decomposed.

Scott, Kalamazoo,

Creationism may still be valid. There is a theory still around that immediately after the Big Bang, time as we know it was hyperaccelerated, and that it slowed down soon afterward as the universe expanded. If this is true, then the 7 days of Creation as described in the Book of Genesis may still be fairly accurate. Hyperacelerated time and hyperaccelerated energy and mass could have resulted in what the universe is today. Just a thought.

Chris, Easton, MA

New discoveries are continually forcing scientists to revise their guesses. How can average people be expected to believe any of their speculations? After all of their wrong speculations, they expect us to believe that they can accurately estimate the beast's top speed? Ridiculous. These people reconstruct entire skeletons from a tooth or jaw bone. Fantastic. They have bigger imaginations than fantasy writers. While it's interesting, I reserve judgment on it all.

drawlr, SLC, UT

Hmm, biological matter intact after 67 million years? That's a long time. (I recall that scientists have also found intact bone marrow inside T-Rex bones.) In any case, I find it amusing that one of your commentators is staggered after reading this article that literate people can still believe in Creationism. Belief in evolution requires no less credulity than belief in creation by Divine fiat.

Christopher Witmer, Tachikawa, Tokyo

Why does the age of this animal matter in trying to understand if the earth is a product of time and chance or the product of the creative acts of a supreme being? If it lived 67 million years ago, it is still a very complex organism that cannot easily be explained by mere "time and chance". The fact that the animal exists at all should make us all wonder in awe at the complexities of this earth and its inhabitants. This a is a wonderful discovery which should challenge many preconceived ideas. 67 Million years is a long time for organic matter to be preserved. My only request is that scientists approach this discovery absent of preconceived conclusions and draw their own inferences from what is observed, not what main stream science says the conclusions have to be.

Scott Geer, Lewisvile, Texas

After this I am staggered that literate people can still believe in Creationisim!

Nigel, London,

I'm amused by Michael Walsh's post below regarding what we currently 'know' about T. Rex. After all, there was a lot that we 'knew' about duckbills that this find has just blown out of the water. Who's to say the same can't happen for T. Rex?

Ben, London, England

You're kidding, right?

DuncanM, Park Ridge, IL, USA

A very important, fantastic find. Skin and other organic tissue can be preserved in perpetuity under optimal conditions and I am sure that well-established methods such as C14 carbon-dating were employed to deteremine the age of the specimen. There is no faith here, just a little luck for the boy who found the specimen, followed by good paleontological work and modern diagnostic science.

George, Palm Beach, USA, Florida

Yes it certainly WOULD take *more* faith to believe some character created the world millions of years after this dinosaur lived! (Basically I don't understand your logic, even if your sentence made sense in terms of amount of faith.)

Now on to the article! TRex has been determined NOT to be a predator, but instead plopped down and wallowed around munching the guts of dead dinos. A scavenger. That's why his front arms are so small, for positioning morsels *during* feeding, NOT *acquiring* food. Can you just imagine such a huge lumbering thing trying to chase a young human down? Impossible, we're much too quick. Just compare a cheetah with an elephant.

It's amazing how many incorrect myths go for *real* around here. TRex a *predator*, indeed!

Michael Walsh, Middletown, CA, USofA

I am staggered that serious people can write and believe that the skin of a dinosaur has been preserved for 67 million years. It takes a lot less faith to believe that the world was created by God much more recently!

Paula Hill, Montreux, Switzerland