No I am not at all dismissive of sciences.
I am also aware that none of the other radiometric dating techniques have been used directly on any dino bones because they can't be, but are instead used on nearby ingenious rocks that have chains of half lifes between sister isotopes and so forth... "
Andy pal, you still sound very confused, and you're trying the patience of our very patient Sunken Civ.
So, take a break and learn something.
Here is a brief summary of geochronology methods.
And here a summary of radiometric dating techniques.
Note that all-told they mentions dozens of different dating methods, of which carbon-14 is just one.
Note also, the explanation of carbon-14 dating clearly shows the year limits on that technique (60,000 max).
As for those dino bones which have you so exercised, please remember that there has never-ever been a complete dinosaur bone found anywhere on earth.
Yes, unconfirmed reports of "dino soft tissue", carefully teased out of specially selected samples, but never a complete bone.
What has been found instead are rock-fossils, sedimentary rock formed by mud particles filling in cells of buried dinosaurs.
They look exactly like the original bones, but are not bones, they are sedimentary rock.
Sedimentary rocks cannot themselves ordinarily be dated radiometrically.
What can be dated absolutely are volcanic ash layers within which, or close to where, fossils are found.
For the past century now, geologists have worked to date, absolutely or relatively, every stratigraphic layer of rock within which fossils (or valuable minerals) are found.
So the approximate dates of any new fossils found are often known pretty well, just from previous work done on nearby geological strata.
Of course, if you fantasize that all those thousands of layers of various kinds of rock were somehow laid down in a matter of days in recent millennia, you likely won't buy anything that reeks of "scientific explanation".
But that is your problem, not ours.