Dinosaur fossil dating methods highly inaccurate

I would like to turn Ron Paitich's question in his letter, "Abundant evidence that Earth is older than 6,000 years," Journal, Nov. 15, back towards him. I would like to challenge some of the examples he gave. The dinosaurs' bones for example. If they are demineralized, soft tissues are exposed; this means that some of the tissues were not replaced by stone minerals. If the bones were "millions" of years old all the tissues should be replaced. With regard to the carbon-14 dating. This method of dating is highly inaccurate. For example, several recently-killed animals were carbon dated and the results claimed they were thousands of years old. The amount of carbon can vary greatly according to its environment.Another fact is that if the Earth really was millions of years old, there would be a greater abundance of helium in the Earth's atmosphere (helium is produced by radioactive decay in the Earth's crust). I would also like to comment on creationist Kent Hovind's courage. He has been ridiculed, yet why do you ridicule someone who stands for what he believes? Wouldn't it be much easier to say "sure the earth is millions of years old" and go with the flow? I personally admire that kind of courage. So, I'm sure evolutionists could offer to explain why their methods of reasoning are so inaccurate. Joseph KonradAuburn