bill,- without re-reading all the posts, it would seem that I did confuse what you were saying about dating methods other than radiocarbon. it was certainly not deliberate, and I confess to probable carelessness there. also, I did not read that particular link, though I very often do look at them.
concerning other methods, ie those used to date rocks , these also rely on unproven assumptions about the past of any particular sample.   usually only one method may be used ,but if more than one is used the result is likely to be widely divergent dates. and even when rock formed in living memory is dated the result, amusingly ,can be millennia old!.
the details of the radio carbon in dino bones can be found on CMI but I don't know how to do a link. I seem to remember it was on you tube, on which a presenter talked about and cited the findings of the researcher concerned. it was presented at a secular conference and the talk was initially on the programmes schedule, but afterwards it mysteriously disappeared.
already observational science is being denied in the case of soft tissue finds and when radio carbon limits exceeded, become more common knowledge, I suppose evolutionists will endeavour some kind of damage control on that too.