And maybe you shouldn't make statements like that without evidence of it.
Empirical testing is based upon knowing what you are doing. So first you need to know what it is you want to be tested and whether or not that test will provide a good result.
If your theory of how soft tissue is preserved in fossils is in question, then how would you know what is being tested would provide trustworthy results? If the dating of the bone's exterior and interior provide different results, you can imagine that one of the two isn't to be trusted so even if you would date the interior to be less then 6k years, where would that leave you? You'd still have to find out what reading is the correct one. Therefor I would find it more logical to first find out what's going on, and if it is considered useful, then date the interior.
Saying "Perhaps" introduces a level of doubt to my statement... Hence it is needs no support as it is merely a suggestion of an idea or my own opinion as Ron stated... I never said this was absolute, (hence the perhaps).
I already know what Empirical testing equates to... I have had to educate many evolutionists on this subject. It isn't based on "knowing what you are doing" since this would mean that empirical experiment on new, unknown, ideas is not possible, (an absurd idea!). Rather empirical equates to Karl Popper's tenets of falsifiability, direct observation of the phenomena or its effects, repeatable, testable, measurable and falsifiable. A query how many of these things fits evolution? From my stance only one.....
The interior isn't dated. This is the problem, rather than doing the tests to find out what is going on,
lame excuses are given instead. There is 100% empirical evidence on the rates of decay of proteins and DNA, whereas on the flip side the "evidence" of an old Earth is highly speculative due to the assumptions made in the dating process.
I'll explain this. In order to use the rate of decay of a radioactive substance you would require the initial concentration of that radioactive substance... You can measure it now and then tomorrow etc, to work out how fast it decays, but without the initial amount there is no end point to how far you extrapolate the time. Was there 10 tonne initially or was it 1 kilo? Where is the line drawn? This is a fatal flaw in the dating process that no-one seems to care about. Furthermore, it also assumes that the decay rate stays constant and that the decay rate is the same as it is now... These are also untestable assumptions... (refer to what I said about empiricalism... Is this empirical data?)