Well we know that radioisotope decay rates cannot and have not been significantly changed, this is experimentally and observationally verified. Independent dating methods on the same sample give convergent results. Read the Hawaiian island thread for undeniable evidence of great age.
We have extremely robust dating methods to enable such statements, but of course you have to be in denial over that else your whole world comes tumbling down. What was the make and model of your time machine that verifies Genesis as a literal account of history rather than the imaginations of men trying to make sense of the world ?
"We have extremely robust dating methods to enable such statements,"
I am curious as to the methodolgy that is utized to calibrate the so called "extremely robust dating methods"
None of those organic remains are dating methods, what is the evidence for your assertion they can't last 100 million years under any circumstance ? As for C14, of course creationists will publicize results that help their cause (i.e. the significantly contaminated ones). How do you know they haven’t withheld results that don’t ?
Is it in any way related to the same "methodolgy" that "Robustly" demonstrates that red blood cells, DNA+ fragments, and collagen that have been Found in Dinosaurs that, coincidentally, ALL HAPPEN TO CONTAIN MEASURABLE CARBON 14 (EVERY SINGLE ONE EVER DATED) EVERY TIME.. Happen to actually be 100 Million Years Old!!! Hmmmmm...
If C14 pervades all organic remains due to it all in fact being young, how do you explain results that give infinite ages (i.e. below the limits of detection ?). This happens with Paleolithic mammal bones for example.
What YOU happen to call "Robust Dating Methods" is in actuality a FRAUD.. I hope that helps your apparent confusion about it..
That’s a very big claim there. You have evidence for this mass conspiracy amongst the world’s scientists ?
Creationist attempts to discredit dating methods are where the fraud can be found. You have provided an example in your first link with Hugh Miller knowingly sending preservative contaminated dinosaur bone fragments to be carbon dated ... but you don't care to investigate that do you ?
What else explains faunal succession ? The Flood ? Have you ever thought that through ? (you obviously haven’t)
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
(Dr. Ronald R. West)
"Well we know that radioisotope decay rates cannot and have not been significantly changed, this is experimentally and observationally verified."
Really? So you "Know that" do you? LOL
OOPS... Maybe you should take a break from this stuff...
"what is the evidence for your assertion they can't last 100 million..."
I just LOVE you guys who pretend to be all about the "Science" as you proceed to require people to PROVE A NEGATIVE... LOL..