Superfrozo, with respect it seems those 'moronic' creationists websites have you a little worried. I will however disregard your blatant hostility and simply deal with the facts.
1. Your response to the missing SNR is really nothing more than a bunch of evolutionist hand waving. We don't see what is predicted so they come up with 'what if's' and 'maybes' to explain it. Just look at the language used in your quotes, 'not necessarily' and 'it is possible' is common of the language used. Now I know all science is tentative but this hardly constitutes 'hard data' as you assert. Even allowing for only 19 odd percent of stage three SNR being observable, there are still zero, you know none, where even by evolutionary calculations there should be in the order of 5000. These are the facts.
2. In regards to dinosaur soft tissue may I suggest you are a little behind the times? Have a look at the article 'Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival' in the secular peer reviewed PLoS One online journal. I think you will find they readily acknowledge the tissue is in fact original dinosaur material, and this is based on real observable science. Of course due to their evolutionary indoctrination they come up with another 'maybe' to explain why it has survived millions of years despite observed degeneration rates. And this 'maybe' of course is not based on any observable science. Oh and Mary Schweitzer, the original discoverer of this material co authored this paper.
3. I'm sorry but I simply can't allow your dig at dating error critiques to go unanswered. I didn't mention that because quite frankly there is so much evidence for a young universe and so little space, but since you bring it up by all means lets discuss it. Firstly carbon dating. This method measures the ratio of C12 to C14 in a specimen, and this must have been a previously living thing. We can very accurately measure this ratio today but we don't know what the original ratio in the world was when the specimen died, that has to be assumed and we have no way of knowing if we are right. Also the rate of decay is assumed to have been constant, again an unknown assumption and if either of these are in error the whole thing is wrong. The final nail is the fact that the half life is about 5700 odd years so after only about 80,000 years there should be no detectable radiocarbon left, but here's the rub, every specimen tested has detectable quantities of radiocarbon, how so after millions of years? And radioisotope testing of volcanic rocks have very similar unprovable assumptions, like the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes, rates of decay etc. In fact volcanic rock formed in the 1980 Mt St Helens volcanic eruption has been dated at 25,000 years old by this method.
4. You don't seem to understand my point about morality at all. We all clearly have an in built knowledge of right and wrong but we certainly don't agree on exactly what this is. Despite what you or I think of the actions of the people in this video, and I think we agree, clearly those involved don't. So whose going to decide? This example to most people is pretty clear cut but what about abortion, or euthanasia? Why is your sense of right better than anyone else's? These are questions atheists will never be able to logically answer.
I'm not going to waste my time responding to your ignorant claims about the bible, I fully understand that to deny accountability to your creator you need to deny the history of the biblical record. But sincerely I do hope that you can break out of your bubble for just a minute and see that no science is interpreted independent of one's worldview.
Perhaps the moderator might consider removing this thread as it has very little to do with aviation and is really just stirring up much deep seated resentment as indicated by Iron Skillet's original angry thread drift.
Regards