Radioisotope dating is not even a point that you can discuss technically , so dont even start. Its a technique that has been established by lab confirmation . To establish that "a day" may have been shorter in the Cretaceous, has no bearing on the method. Didintegrations are counted by the second, not by a variable year. BTW, we dont use Radiocarbon to date dinosaur deposits. You know this. Only the YECs still argue the Radioisotope question as if their point had any validity. REMEMBER, YECS MUST deny most science
1Genetic evidence of "fossil" DNA is invalid
2ALL strtigraphy and paleontology is incorrect
4Geomagnetics is wrong (AS is seafloor spreading because paleo mags maps the spread of seafloors)
5Structural geology is incorrect because it interprets the movements of landmasses over one another and these movements are traced by tectonic (F1-Fn deformational analyses)
6Cladistics has gotta be incorrect because no elephants have been found in the CAmbrian, or no mammoths were ever found with dinosaurs (let alone humans).
I know perfectly well that Schweitzer has not been converted to a YEC. What I HAVE claimed is that these scientists HAVE found soft tissue inside a trex bone and that there is no way in hell that tissue is 65,000,000 years old. Bone isn't the MOST porous stuff in the world but it IS porous and for that stuff to have not been totally petrified in 65,000,000 years,
Now gunga is expert on what can or cannot be the fossil result of diagenesis. We have several examples of fossil trilobites that have been preserved as "waxy" material and entire insects in amber with all fluids still readable and exoskeletal material still mostly keratin. We have kerogen deposits fom the CRetaceous back to the PErmian.
Schweitzer had to treat the matrix around the blood vessels of the T rex with acid to dissolve the cementiteous matrix. Its like the soft parts were encased within cement. They used Hydroflouric acid to treat it and to release the parts) Everything fits into a model of about 70 mya. Gunga just doesnt understand the chemistry and certainly has no expertise to even comment less even understand.
Ive only commented on the phoney credentials of all his sources so far, not Dr SChweitzer. Dr SChweitzer has been publishing about the soft tissue in the T rex, perhaps gunga doesnt want to keep up to date.
PS the Tika stones youve described have no bases in fact to even be greater than about 100 years old. Noone is certain that these stones werent carved by some recent tricksters. I dont know enough about them.
If all those petroglyphs and columns were of dinosaurs still alive, where are they?.Artistic fancy doesnt need a scientific basis. The Cambodian "Triceratops" is the only one that copuld be interesting to actually track down. I suspect that the entire column has several fanciful animals that are takeoffs of monkeys, rhinos, elephants etc.
I sure as hell wouldnt make myself a science denier by such flimsy evidence. Gunga is trying to place his petroglyphs up against over a hundred years of good solid science. CAn you say flat earther?