Gunga doesnt have the skills to continue reading past his Creationist blogs to determine where facts lie. When radiometric dating is done, they are usually cpompounded from several overlapping methodologies.
What the gunga is doing is a complete backflip on what his "Creation scientists" were doing just a few years ago (wherein they were trying to discount ALL radiometric dating because it was "Fraught with error")
Seems theyve changed their minds by doing a completely bogus lab test wherein they are , i n reality, measuring a whole sample age by counting C14 that theyve actually INTRODUCED into the samples.
Kinda ass backward . It appears that the U of Georgia had published a retraction that spared their radionuclide lab some major embaraasment. It appears that the samples delivered them were not honestly reported out as far as matrix, context, etc.
WE already knew the radio ages of the sediments above and below the layer wherein the dinosaur fossils lay
. (IM TRYING TO GET THIS ONE POINT THROUGH GUNGAS HEAD, AND ALL I CAN DO IS REPEAT THE FACTS).
If the fossils lay in sedimentary layers (that contained date-able volcanic ash), and these layers are dated by overlapping means (K/Ar, K/Ar-Ar, U/Pb, sedimentary association, mapping of the Hell Creek Fm), HOW then, can the fossil dinosaur be 3 orders of magnitude younger than the rocks in which it lay.
Theres only 2 ways that can happen
1Fraudulent or incompetent radiochemistry, including improper cleanups, contamination, or (as I think happened) using a shellac coating on the bones and including some shellac residue to the lab
2"salting the strata" with doctored bones that were dusted with young carbon