Who is changing positions? Sometimes with new discoveries there are advances made and the science evolves. That is the beauty of science. It is not written in stone and it should be questioned at every step of the way. No problems here with that at all.
The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
(Carbon dating is good for rocks under 70k years only)
Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
(Argon dating is good for rocks older than 100k years only.)
As for the Hawaii lava flow age, The creationist have lied about, or did not understand the contents of this paper. The two-hundred year old lava was not what scientists were trying to date. What was being studied were xenoliths (also called inclusions).
What these are, are bits of rock that are embedded within the lava flow. These rocks are older than the lava flow. They were carried up by the magma, but the magma was not hot enough to melt them. Thus one should not be surprised that these bits of rock date older than two centuries old since they are well over two centuries old. Furthermore the study was trying to see in this dating technique is appropriate for xenoliths. They found that it was not.
As for the T-rex, Schweitzer then duplicated her findings with at least three other well-preserved dinosaur specimens, one 80-million-year-old hadrosaur and two 65-million-year-old tyrannosaurs. All of these specimens preserved vessels, cell-like structures, or flexible matrix that resembled bone collagen from modern specimens.
Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years. Schweitzer hopes that further research will reveal exactly what the soft structures isolated from these bones are made of. Do they consist of the original cells, and if so, do the cells still contain genetic information? Her early studies of the material suggest that at least some fragments of the dinosaurs' original molecular material may still be present.
"We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think," says Schweitzer. "Our preliminary research shows that antibodies that recognize collagen react to chemical extracts of this fossil bone. If further studies confirm this, we may have the potential to learn more not only about the dinosaurs themselves, but also about how and why they were preserved in the first place."
T-rex story
Edit: I have a lot of respect for you Nick and I am not trying to pick on you or your beliefs at all. I am just pointing out some other options/explanations/possibilities.
