And you are avoiding the basic question. Is all radiometric dating useless, or to use your tactic, is it valuable when it supports a 6K year old universe but then questionable? You raised the original issue when you questioned whether C14 was used to date the 14K year old Canadian village.
Trying to get you to think: Does it make sense that soft tissue is found in anything that is no longer capable (theoretically mind you, by 'science' postulation) of being soft because it is millions of years old?
How dedicated are 'we' (opposing sides) dedicated to a concept, that we can't ask ourselves again whether the science idea is functional. To any degree we are unwilling, we are being ingrained and indoctrinated.
You don't have the same commitment to a theory of science, that one does to their theology simply because the theologian has their belief as a paradigm for living.
The guy looking at science doesn't have a fraction of nearly the same commitment so it is REALLY odd when an obvious conundrum presents itself, that an internet guy looking at science (or a scientist who is only it by trade and still not the same commitment level) doesn't question the obvious disconnect.
"What is actually happening for dinosaur soft tissue (by example) to appear in a fossil that was dated to be millions of years old?" The internet guy and scientist should not be posturing against such questions but seeking to cogently answer them, themselves, ESPECIALLY as he/she is not nearly as attached to the result as a theologian happens to be about his/her theology and what may attempt to assail it.
