[BroJoeK]

Reporting Carbon-14 dates on dinosaur fossils has to be the very definition of the term, "junk science".
That's because what they are reporting is either random nonsense, or not original dinosaur material.

Yes, all radiometric dating is problematic to some degree and can easily result in bogus numbers.
But when understood thoroughly and performed carefully, radiometric dating produces ages consistent with our overall scientific models.

Labs which do such work for a living know all the different ways to get it wrong, and on complete reviews, could tell us what happened with these particular reports of alleged carbon-14 dating of dinosaur soft tissues.

[Sopater]

Reporting Carbon-14 dates on dinosaur fossils has to be the very definition of the term, "junk science".
That's because what they are reporting is either random nonsense, or not original dinosaur material.

That's an absolute statement that requires some evidence. If it's soft dinosaur tissue, how is it not original material?

...when understood thoroughly and performed carefully, radiometric dating produces ages consistent with our overall scientific models.

Interesting, since global warming is based on scientific models which are more readily adjusted as more evidence and information becomes available, yet has proven to be WAY off when confronted with reality.

I can only assume that you have some way of substantiating these scientific models that goes beyond simply supporting your original assumptions.