[Sopater]

BroJoeK: So far as I know, evidence for exactly what this material is, is not conclusive

It would be easier to determine if it is actually dinosaur tissue than if it is actually 75M years old. That is for sure.

BroJoeK: Nothing like that is at stake with evolution theory in general, or radiometric dating techniques specifically.

Primarily because it is not as "verifiable" as climate change models.

BroJoeK: 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".

That is fine, but I would ask the same of you.

[centurion316]

When discussions start out with assertions that have an expectation that C14 dating can return valid results from a Cretaceous age sample, I conclude that it’s not worth spending much time.

The internet includes any number of simple explanations of how C14 dating, as well as other techniques, work. Spend a few minutes with one.

[SunkenCiv]

Science is a method, not a body of knowledge. The difference between beliefs and scientific conclusions is, your beliefs are neither verifiable nor falsifiable. That’s why science is science, and belief is belief.

[BroJoeK]

Sopater: "It would be easier to determine if it is actually dinosaur tissue than if it is actually 75M years old. That is for sure."

No, about the best they can do is report the soft matter somewhat resembles modern birds like Emus -- yes, that's highly suggestive, but not necessarily conclusive.
But radiometric dating is a much different matter, since it has been performed hundreds or thousands of times on materials from all over the world, consistently supporting the standard scientific time-line model.

But certainly radiometric dating is tricky, easy to get wrong, and necessarily requires check & recheck.
And it appears those checks didn't happen on your alleged carbon-14 dating of supposed dinosaur tissues.
So I suspect somebody with malicious intent had the process performed wrong, producing absurd results.
So whoever did it should be thoroughly examined, held accountable and maybe fired.
Your reports of their carbon-14 results suggest to me they are not good people and should not be trusted with anything important.

Sopater: "Primarily because it is not as "verifiable" as climate change models."

Radiometric dating results are verifiable when repeated using different materials, and when subject to peer reviews.
So the big difference is, as I said, political.
However, in scientific theories relating to evolution, there was and still is no obvious political advantage to one theory or another.
Indeed, from the beginning there have been great disadvantages to teaching evolution, as the 1925 so-called Scopes Monkey Trial illustrated.

So, unlike "global warming", evolution theory goes back to a time when government played no role in such matters, and has been confirmed in many details innumerable times since.
That makes it good solid science, in my book.

Sopater: "That is fine, but I would ask the same of you."

Science is what it is, and you are free to oppose whatever aspects of science you wish, for whatever non-scientific reasons appeal to you.
But you cannot call your non-scientific beliefs "science".
They are not.