Ironically the reason why C-14 isn't used is due to its short (relatively) half-life - but anyone with a passing knowledge knows this (and I am presuming the good doctor has at least learnt the basics)..
Furthermore, we just stop refusing to perform Carbon-14 dating analysis simply for ideological reasons and see just how old this dinosaur really is.
However it does raise and interesting question:-
You always dismiss radiometric dating methods as inaccurate due to relying on assumptions , shown to be wrong (RATE ? See above) etc
But you use your Dino DNA half-life argument even though it arguably has more assumptions, including the assumption that any ACTUAL DNA was found, but also that degradation rates are constant (we know they are very dependent on environment)
So how come you dismiss radiometric dating which contradicts young earth, but accept Dino DNA half-life's which (supposedly) support it.?
Maybe it's you that are (again) applying double-standards for ideological reasons.
Just a thought