You majored in physics? Yes indeed, and I'm a test pilot for NASA and I'm relaying this to you from my lunar module.
A science major would know perfectly well that SM doesn't involve everyone making a guess, then taking some kind of vote on whose guess sounds the most convincing!
Jesus, you must think we're all stupid.
The answers are to be found in this article.
[To be serious, let me point out that the entirely counter-factual "answer" proposed by Twpsyn is firstly inspired by passionately irrational people devoted to elaborating wildly on a few pages written by Bronze Age people, regardless of how obvious it is that they didn't know much, and secondly is just as convincing as the stork theory for the origin of babies].
So it wasn't iorn, it was those pesky bronze age idiots that caused the soft tissue samples in dinosaur bones?
Been researching some radioactive decay from as you would say spurious sources and came across the concept of radio halos. Apparently as uranium decays into lead it does it in 8 stages, the first stage produces uranium radio halos and the later stages produces polonium radio halos. It seems that there are evidences in granite that these occurred more or less at the same time and that this is evidence that over 100 million years of nuclear decay at present rates occurred in a matter of days. Something along those lines anyway...
I want recognition that I have given everything I have here as to how emotions are core to why we humans are where we are 2day.
And the reason ppl don't wanna accept it all is 'cuz we don't wanna go there ! It's far too complicated....right ?
Now. Why are you avoiding it ?....I can answer it 4u, but you'll be better served answering it to yourself.
I think some of u old dinosaurs need to hug each other....too bad your arms are too short !
For clarity's sake ... what does the broad narrowing of the discussion to "science" actually mean? Is it learning from mistakes, and making guesses based upon those mistakes, and then seeking to convince other people that your guesses are correct by detailing observations and methods by which those observations were made?
Are you seriously telling us that this is not a profoundly anti-science position?
"...learning from mistakes, and making guesses based on those mistakes, and then seeking to convince other people that your guesses are correct..."
If that isn't a popularity vote, what is it?
You're not anti-science, right? You majored in physics, right?
Ok, so you know about replication and how this is central to the scientific method. Right?
Except that you've made no reference to this.
Why not?
The answers are to be found in this article.
[To be serious, let me point out that the entirely counter-factual "answer" proposed by Twpsyn is firstly inspired by passionately irrational people devoted to elaborating wildly on a few pages written by Bronze Age people, regardless of how obvious it is that they didn't know much, and secondly is just as convincing as the stork theory for the origin of babies].
So it wasn't iorn, it was those pesky bronze age idiots that caused the soft tissue samples in dinosaur bones?
You do understand that the scientists have an explanation of those residues that is consistent with all of the facts and the science denialists have an explanation that is consistent with virtually nothing except their inaccurate preconceptions about a world that appeared in the time of the Pharoahs?
You see science doesn't have the luxury of ignoring the vast amount of data on ages of rocks just because of one new piece of evidence.
It was believed for quite a while that bacteria would destroy ALL organic residue. It is now known that under certain chemical conditions they are prevented from doing so. This is not a difficult thing to accept as possible, surely?
You need to recognise the importance of not being wildly selective in your use of evidence.
Let's follow the reasoning.
There is organic residue that has not been totally decomposed in some fossils. Conclusion 1: the residue was not completely decomposed. Hypothesis needed why the residue has not completely decomposed. Hypothesis 1: the fossil was formed last Wednesday (or your preferred impossoble date). Hypothesis 2: the decomposition was prevented by some mechanism that interferes with the ability of bacteria to decompose organic material. There happen to be many such mechanisms.
Note also that the hypothesis that the fossils are so new there has not been time to decompose the flesh fails not only based on radiometric dates, but also fails based on the time needed to ossify a fossil, which involves a process of slow replacement of organic material by other chemicals. Given the chance, bacteria can decompose organic material completely in a time scale of years or even less!
There was a joke we made in university, if your scientific observation disagree with the text books engineer them so that they don't, then you'll get a degree in engineering.
All I can say is Bughouse come get you some. Also join the bughouse club chats heres the link.
https://www.chess.com/club/chat/bughouse
The last time we started talking about preconceptions it almost led to the closure of this forum.
There is no vote. It is a matter of trying to prove postulates and hypotheses. This cannot be done without convincing other people.
It is fundamentally impossible to convince the majority of people of anything demanding of unusual insight. General relativity and quantum mechanics are, I would say, virtually entirely beyond most people's understanding (and, it has been wisely said, beyond the complete understanding of anyone!).
While it would be nice, there is no requirement to convince them in order for science to be established as true. There is only the requirement to convince those who are MOST capable of understanding. In the case of certain sciences, the barriers to understanding are not merely the technical difficulty, they include barriers based on psychology, social pressure, and systematic indoctrination and propaganda by the scientifically ignorant (or, in some cases, incompetent).
Evidence: This looks a bit younger than we imagined.
Hypothesis one: It's probably younger than we thought.
Hypothesis two: Some long convoluted answer to desperately explain why this can't possibly be the case.
Hypothesis three: Darn those pesky bronze aged idiots.
I'm telling you, it's them that start off the presuppositional aspects of this debate.
Evidence: This looks a bit younger than we imagined.
No scientist would say this.
"Youngness" is a conclusion, not part of the evidence. Moreover, your claim is that it is SO young that bacteria has not even had TIME to decompose the organic material. This is not a BIT younger than say a hundred million years. Rather it is ABSURDLY younger, the dinosaurs must surely have died in our lifetimes. 
[Rest ignored as it was based on this error of stating the desired (and proven false) conclusion as if it was evidence].
.
Look mate, I don't mind folk coming in here and taking a contrary, anti-science position so long as they are honest about where they're coming from. The Ghostess Lola falls into this category.
What I object to is people like you, barging in here and trying to convince everyone that you're knowledgeable and qualified in this area when it's transparently obvious that you're neither. When it comes to physics, you're about as knowledgeable as my girlfriend's cat. As cats go he's pretty smart actually, but a physicist he isn't.
The crucial difference of course, between him and you, is that Harry doesn't try to pretend to be something that he isn't.