So far as I know, evidence for exactly what this material is, is not conclusive -- seems like dino-stuff, but maybe not.
Certainly, if your reports on alleged carbon-14 dating have any validity at all, then the material they dated is not dino-stuff, perhaps just remains of some other critter which lived in ancient dino-stuff.
But I think your reports themselves are bogus, and the alleged carbon-14 dating flawed, producing nothing more than random noise, not actual ages.
So I'll repeat: an experienced lab which does such work routinely could study your test details and explain just what they did wrong.
I personally have no reason to expect that there was any honest intent in these alleged carbon-14 results.
Sopater: "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."
Despite your fondest wishes, it's not the same thing.
Yes, there is serious science regarding "global warming" which has unfortunately been deeply corrupted due to billions of dollars in political influence.
As our liberal-progressives have famously said, "never let a crisis go to waste", but it's worse than that -- they never let the lack of a crisis stop them, they simply fabricate one as needed -- ergo "global warming", to support their advocacy for yet bigger, more international government controls.
Nothing like that is at stake with evolution theory in general, or radiometric dating techniques specifically.
The data we have on it today is consistent with many ideas dating back 100 years and more.
It's totally a matter of science, having nothing to do with politics.
Of course, believers are free to chose what they believe, but science as a discipline has its models of evolution, and no seriously confirmed data to contradict them.
Sopater: "I can only assume that you have some way of substantiating these scientific models that goes beyond simply supporting your original assumptions."
"Supporting my original assumptions"...??
Of course scientifically confirmed data supports it's models / theories.
Indeed, contrary to what people like yourself claim, there is no seriously confirmed scientific data which contradicts those models /theories.
In the category of "radiometric dating" there are dozens of different materials which can be, and have been, used to establish geological dates.
Performed correctly dozens, hundreds & thousands of times, they repeatedly confirm the models.
In addition, astronomical observations confirm ages of stars, galaxies & Universe itself at billions of years, which is consistent with earth-bound radiometric dates.
Beyond those are estimates based on things like ocean-floor expansions -- about the rate of our fingernail growth -- and for more recent eras, Antarctic ice cores and known rates of growth in cave structures, stalactites, stalagmites.
Of course, you are not required to believe even one word of any of it, provided you don't call your own contrary beliefs "science".