I still have no interest in fighting with a pedant, sorry.
Okay, don't admit that it is "the sole tool used to date civilizations pre-flood" as if you don't get my point. Right around the time when people like me say the Flood happened, people like you must resort to non-documentary and often, apocryphal, even conjectural, constructs of society. If it makes you feel better to say, "We must resort to radiometric dating pre-circa 5,000 BP" I might be able to have a discussion with you, but I'm feeling a bit burned, and I doubt it.
Nor was I asking you to "discredit academic discoveries". I was asking you if you're open to different interpretation of such recognized discoveries. You are not. I've said already in this thread that for radiometric dating to work like most of us think it should, for a 100-million-year fossil to be 100 million years old, assumptions have to be made about all kinds of things, including solar radiation fluctuation, etc.
A third way you ARE being rhetorical is asking "What controversies are you aware of the professionals in the field are not?" I call baloney. You make it sound like everyone in all these fields is totally sympatico, like dating ancient fossils or civilizations is like looking at calendars tied to atomic clocks. No. That's somewhere between disingenuous and just blind. In my own lifetime, the age of the Earth has moved up and down by more than a billion years and is currently, still, in dispute. If you used more correct terms, even, like "most scientists believe the Earth is X years old..." but I digress.
And I see no apology, none, for your pillory against Jesus Christ. I came to ReligiousForums.com and started contributing because I saw that even skeptics could post here while being respectful of others' beliefs. Calling Jesus Christ a zombie was the last straw. You are here to attack and tear and wound, not to learn anything.
So you're not going to offer defenses for the positions of yours that I am questioning?
However, if you're open to truth, really, or to even walking a mile in someone else's shoes, you might want to read some of this page, which touches on one of several issues in modern radiometric dating:
Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material | Bob Enyart Live
Thank you.
Now we are getting somewhere!
(For reference, it would be unwise of you to make the assumption that I don't spend a considerable amount of time reading apologetic material...)
While this page has quite a bit of information on it, I don't see links to the studies that were done by Horner and Schweitzer about WHY the soft tissue was still existent within the specimen.
Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian
This describes the find, somewhat, from 2006.
Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained
Here's an explanation of that find, from 2013.
Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein
Here's the actual journal entry, published in 2007.
There is a very good reason why the T-Rex collagen was not dated using methods that have a a time limit of roughly 60,000 years, and it's simply because there was no reason to. If all data surrounding a find indicate that it's definitely millions of years old, and there are very good and reasonable explanations for how such tissue was preserved, then why should a limited dating method be applied to such a discovery?
Also, please note that the soft tissues samples from dinosaurs and other long-extinct organisms are not found en masse. The samples that do exist are quite scarce.
A challenge to this Creationist position that everything was killed all at once in some great flood would be simple to formulate. If everything is only a few thousand years old, then why don't we find these soft tissues everywhere, and on everything that's buried in the strata? I mean, it's quite simple. If there was a global flood that killed everything on the planet 7,000 years ago so that Noah and 7 other people could repopulate it, then shouldn't ALL paleontological discoveries be just as fresh? Shouldn't they all have some amount of soft tissue on them? Since dinosaurs and humans lived together a few thousand years ago, why aren't human remains found in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why are they always found in separate layers? Why is there not a single solitary piece of evidence to link human and dinosaur cohabitation? Why are there no complex modern organisms found in smaller layers?
If creationists can simply support one of those charges, then they can be taken somewhat seriously.
Simply supplying a link to an apologetic website which doesn't even bother questioning itself is not good enough to support to the initial premise that all geologic strata exist as they do because of a Biblical global flood.
I'm all up for learning, if you'd simply supply me with something new.
