yes bill,i am aware that the dating methods usually give results in the tens of thousands of years.
however i am also aware that the methods employ starting assumption.for example ,how much carbon to begin with or if the rate of decay has always been constant.
creationists suggest that it may not have been constant.the flood conditions could have radically altered the rate.admittedly that cannot be proven.
what we do know however is that dating methods can be wildly wrong.
for example rock formed from volcanic action this century have been "dated"as millenia old.
i read the new rob link.i reserve judgement as to whether it is only ghost dna discovered.up to feb 13 the article infers that is the case.
we shall see whether his "sloppy" charge holds up.
in the meantime there is still all the other stuff that at one time would be considered impossible after 65 MYO.

btw.are people getting bored,so they try to bate steve to post!?