From your link:
"Pike's team teased out the new dates using a method that relies on known rates of decay in uranium—specifically uranium in calcium deposits that had formed over the paint. The mineral-based paint itself couldn't be dated, because it contains neither uranium nor the carbon needed for radiocarbon dating."
How do they know what the rates are?
Do they stay constant over time?
Are the rates only based on how the mind perceives it?
There is no purely objective way to conclusively show this for sure. It's all based on minds assuming the reality.
Darn. Here I come, which means you're gonna have to figure out what else to type in bold. Because we do have pigments from cave paintings that we could directly date via carbon dating, and darn it, they all show (depending on which cave they were from) ages of 30-40,000 years.
And while I know it is important for you to cast doubt when you've got nothing else, you're going to have to do better than that if you want to wow us with your brilliance. Science, you know, the real world kind that knew how to blow up Japan, also knows a lot about other atoms. And if they knew enough to use them to make things go boom in the night, I can assure you that they also know enough about how other atoms work to come up with dating methods using known decay rates.
And of course, you're right, we don't know if decay rates are static. But we can find no reason to think that they are not (other than your personal appeal to scientists everywhere to just STOP!). So they keep coming up with these big numbers that just break your heart.
Of course your smart science guys should be able to figure out an easy way to prove that the rates change and stuff. Because you guys are smart too. I just hope, for your sake, that they change in the right direction. Otherwise the cave painting might turn out to be, oh, you know, 2,000,000 years old or something. Ouch, that would hurt.
And this mind perceives thing. How do you know when you've stubbed your toe? Are you sure it isn't just your mind perceiving?
When someone needs something carbon dated, they don't pull out their handy-dandy carbon dating kit, from Radio Shack, and whip out a figure in ten minutes or less. Instead they whip out their wallet and put a thousand dollars or more in an envelope and send it along with the carbon to a lab that specializes in such things, and they don't tell the lab how old they think he material is, they let the lab figure that out all by their little old lonesome. So I could write a check for two grand and send some carbon out of my still warm wood stove in one sample and carbon from something I didn't know the age of but that I had dug out of the ground, three feet deep, and the lab would test each and tell me what it came up with. They would have no preconceived notions about anything to do with the age. They would have my check and the samples and I would get numbers back. The minds in the lab would perceive that they'd been paid and they would come up with numbers based on current science and poof, I'd have what I wanted.
Could I trust the numbers? Well, I'd be well served if I could find other evidence regarding the age of the carbon out of the hole. But the very first carbon test was done on samples from Ancient Egypt. The archaeologists had already determined, using written Egyptian history and other information from the excavation, that the sample they were sending off to be tested was somewhere around 2625 BC. The carbon dating came back saying it was from 2800 BC, give or take 250 years. Not exact, but also not so far off as to be totally useless. And the process has improved since then.
WAIT A MINUTE! Did I say 2625 BC. That was three hundred years before the flood! And this stuff hadn't gotten wet. Nor had any of the cave paintings. Something is suspicious here.
Sorry, I was having doubts for a second. That won't happen again.
Anyway, complain all you want about carbon and other radiometric dating methods (you know, the ones where, using different dating methods they come up with similar dates, even on stuff hundreds of thousands or millions or billions of years old. But ignore those. They are soooo hard on the brain. I don't see any need for you to make your complaints about those known in bold until tomorrow.)
But do keep this in mind. If they are accurate, then your story is in trouble. To the tune of many orders of magnitude.
If our numbers are wrong, then you guys, using good solid direct science that you can trust and back up with experiments and data some spiffy YouTube videos, should be able to prove it by mid January, at the latest. Because if we're that wrong about everything, your brilliance should overwhelm us with ease.
We'll be in the labs and stuff. Let us know what you find.