And I do NOT think David Pakman is a good source for science information ...

video

Creationist Thinks Earth is 6,000 Years Old, Finds 60 Million Year Old Fossil
David Pakman Show | 4.VI.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMEC0avGdlw

Comments

I

At 1:19 "we only have isotopic dating" (I suppose outside C14, since you enumerate C14 separately), "and basic geology" (meaning, I suppose Geological column), "and carbon dating".

Do you have any even remote idea how irrelevant carbon dating would be as evidence for 60 000 000 years?

After 70 000 - This date is too large and beyond the limits of present accuracy (55000 to 60000 years) - you have 0.021 % of modern (content of) carbon (14), a k a 0.021 pmc.

100 000 years : 0.001 pcm.

200 000 years : 0

300 000 years : 0 ...

Does it surprise you that 60 000 000 years is : 0 pcm?

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

Now, while this cannot be evidence for 60 million years, it can be evidence against it.

If you find any carbon 14 in a sample presumed 60 million years old - it's not that old. Unless you can argue it is contaminated by more recent carbon - which Evolutionists do over such finds - but in this case, their argument is usually like "it must be contamination, because the ages found by a creationist sending a sample to a normal lab can't be right".

2:07 why is the other guy touting "radiocarbon"?

Is he too ignorant of radiocarbon being irrelevant for 60 million years - unless it is evidence against it?

For long ages, a more usual one is potassium argon.

The cases in which it is inaccurate are like, recent eruptions, known such, are dated as million years old and the "recent" option is way outside the error of margin. Even if it would be the correct one.

The cases "where it has been used accurately" (as you said of that other method, radiocarbon) are either recent is within a very very wide margin error or non-recent is so non-recent the real date cannot be historically checked.

II

2:24 "the very tenets of science"

Look here, "basic fossil dating" is not basic, and it cannot be a "tenet" of science, unless science is a kind of Church. Simple and neutral procedures, like science is supposed to be, cannot have "tenets". Pakman shows his ignorance again ...

2:56 "on the one hand science tells us"

No, some scientists tell you - others (whom you chose to ignore or label as pseudo-scientists) tell you the opposite, as proven or as at least possible, compatible with the evidence.

III

2:41 "everything else is the Devil" - "that's great ..."

Nice strawman ... Pakman not just ignorant of what he defends, but cultivates ignorance of what he attacks too.

The guy is, at end of the video, "keeping [his] distance" ... in other words, the equivalent of a religious excommunication.

(Judging from beginning, I think that guy is called "Lewis" or "Louis" by the way).