Enough about this old age crap. If we're not allowed to bring our presupposition that the bible is true into the discussion, then you're not allowed to bring the presupposition that any animal is millions of years old.

The idea that any animal is that old, even if its just the fossilized remnants, is based on faith.

1). Dating methods contradict each other.
2). Even one method can give different dates.
3). We have no way of knowing if decay rates have been constant throughout history since no one has been alive that long.
4). Much of dating is done circularly (ie we know that these bones are millions of years old, so that strata is millions of years old, and so any bones found in it are millions of years old).

Unless you can refute all of these facts (and more), I'd like to stick to present day facts which are far more scientific. Unless you'd like me to also bring my own myth (embodied in the bible) into the debate? Saying that the lineage of early man is a good way to tell the age of animals or of the earth is about as scientific as saying unreliable, inconsistent dating methods which we ASSUME are true based on decay rate constants which we have no way of knowing their stability show the age of animals or the earth.

You can't stack the debate in your favor by bringing your own bible into the mix.