I do think the real issue about this is not so much about the soft tissues, but instead about the proteins (collagen I think) found inside the fossils.
Yes, it is collagen.
Lab experiments with the best possible preservation conditions (no oxygen, no bacteria, etc.) have come with maximum ages of 3 millions years at 0ºC, less then 200 000 years at 10ºC and less then 15 000 years at 20ºC. Even in temparatures much lower then any found on earth, it does not come close to 65 millions years.
Like Percy, I would like to know the source of this information. But more specifically, what proteins are we talking about here? I'm no bio-chemist, but even I know that collagen forms the structural strength in living organisms, and is unsurprisingly robust compared to most other proteins. I would pause for thought before throwing around accusations of special pleading...
Creationist are not saying radiometric dating don't work, they are saying that the assumption that the nuclear decay is constant may not be true.
Really? How fast would the decay rates need to be changed to support a YEC view? What sort of Terrestrial heat output would that imply? How do they explain the data from Oklo? How would they explain just about all observed stellar astrophysics? Did you read that paper by Barrow, etc, or varying alpha? Did you notice the observed bounds on the variation of alpha across the age of the Universe?
Cesium relies on a constant speed of light. Which we now understand is a fallacy.
Really? Care to elucydate us, as us physicists are in the dark here :rolleyes: Please note that evidence that alpha may have been different in the past by some femtoscopic fraction of a percent does not imply that considering the speed of light as constant is fallacious.
The only measure of time is the earths rotation and it's orbit around the sun.
Why have we been adding seconds to our time ever since we've been using the atomic clock as a standard?
:rolleyes: Because our clocks are based on the earth's rotation wrt the Sun (in order to preserve conventions of day and night) and this is not only not exactly equal to 24 hrs (as defined by the stable atomic clocks) but is also not constant. On the short timescale it varies back and forth owing to orbital dynamics, and over the long timescale, the rotational day is getting longer because the Earth's spin is slowing down as angular momentum is being transferred from the spin to the Earth-Lunar system via tidal dragging.
It can't be because the earth is slowing down, the earth is subject the laws of nature, in particular, the conservation of angular momentum.
Really? Oh, well perhaps you better ignore what I wrote above because it seems you know more about this than I do...
Maybe the clocks a dud!
Modern physics is now considering a theory... it raises the distinct possibility that scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis