I can appreciate your argumentation because it actually seems to make sense in that you don’t sound like a lawyer.
However, there are some problems. In particular, the “factors we don’t fully understand yet” excuse. That’s available all around.
For example, there could be a universal, unknown factor which affects all dating methods such that although they precisely concur with one another, they are nevertheless vastly inaccurate.
Mammoths lived in ice, so they died in ice. Mummified dinosaurs haven’t been formed in ice because they didn’t frequent icy regions.
I don’t have an answer for the sabertooth tiger bones. It appears to be a problem for my argument, but I must say it doesn’t seem particularly overwhelming.
Thank you. I’m always glad when my arguments at least seem to make sense.
Regarding what we understand: again, it comes down to what seems more likely. Is there some chemical process that, under certain conditions, can preserve tiny scraps of soft tissue encased inside bone for millions of years? Or is there some unknown factor that can skew the 700-million-year half-life of U-235, the 1.3BY half-life of potassium 40, the 50BY half-life of rubidium 87, and several others, all by the precise amount necessary to make them all wrong but all agree? I know which scenario I find vastly more plausible.
We have mummies of lots of animals. Some died in ice, some in tar pits, some in bogs, some in deserts, some on mountains. None of them are dinosaurs. It just seems to me that if all the dinosaurs were still around when the mammoths and the sabertooths and humans were, we’d have some evidence in the form of a mummified carcass or at least pieceof a carcass.
To me, accepting the geologic time scale answers all these questions except the fairly trivial one of how flakes of tissue get preserved for millions of years. Throwing out that time scal opens up a myriad of other questions that don’t have good answers.