When I get an answer (even an attempt to answer) that question, then I will concede that radio carbon dating is correct.....As for now, I trust something I can see with my eyes and a microscope."
Like I said, there is a long list of bogus "facts" which science-deniers like yourself post on these threads to confuse the unwary in hopes of discrediting science itself.
The truth of this matter is that there are any number of reports of ancient life surviving into modern times.
One that comes to mind as especially credible is apparently dead bacteria buried for hundreds of millions of years in underground salt deposits, which when water is added immediately come back to life and happily continue just where they left off, before their "long winter's nap".
Another were reports of Jurassic Park style DNA found in amber incrusted insects.
Another were reports of dinosaur collagen found, iirc, in "Sue".
What all of these reports have in common is, they are all disputed, and in the case of Jurassic Park style DNA, thoroughly debunked.
But they do suggest that under certain, very ideal natural conditions, some basic organic material may survive millions of years.
But just so we're clear on this point: no shred of ancient DNA has ever been recovered older than, say, Neanderthals -- circa 40,000 years ago.
As for your fervent desire to deny the science of radiometric dating, that can only be a function of your anti-science beliefs, and has nothing to do with Louie Pasteur's 19th century scientific discoveries -- all of which he proved to the satisfaction of the many scientists who repeated his experiments.
None of your anti-science claims has ever been "proved" to anyone's satisfaction.
Are you reading my posts?
It’s not science vs anti-science.
It’s the definition of WHAT is Science.
SCIENCE is repeatable, observable, and explainable.
Science deals in facts. Not accusations and attacks on people’s characters.
In particular, if you simply google dinosaur blood you will find lots of articles, even published in peer reviewed journals. In particular, a recent find has viable tissue and blood from the remains of a T-Rex. I doubt T-Rex hung around for 70 million years hiding under rocks and such.
They have already confirmed that PROTEINS exist in the soft T-Rex tissue found.
What SCIENCE is doing now is trying to explain how protein can survive 70-100 Million years.
Also, radiometric dating assumes a constant rate of decay over millions of years, which although it is an assumption, may be correct.
And yes, ancient DNA has been sequenced from the Ice Age - in particular Mammoth DNA.