Laughing at what you don't understand and know little about only makes you look silly.
Bones from cows being called tens of thousands year old,
Please document this amazing claim of yours, and provide a citation to it. We'll wait.
living mollusks labeled 10,000 years old..
...because those mollusks get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old, the radiocarbon results CORRECTLY gave a weighted log-average for the material in the mollusks, some of which was "zero" years old (i.e. still living), and some of which was ancient. This is why radiocarbon dating is not recommended for certain marine animals unless appropriate precautions are taken. Your creationist sources sort of "forgot" to tell you about that, didn't they? The classic reference for this issue is:
Rubin, M., and D. W. Taylor (1963) "Radiocarbon activity of shells from living clams and snails." Science. vol. 141, p. 637.Note the date on that article: 1963. What excuse do creationists have for misunderstanding or misrepresenting this issue, when it has been well understood in the scientific community FOR OVER FORTY YEARS? I guess the creationists are a little behind on their reading, eh?
If you want to correct more of your ignorance on the topic of radiocarbon dating of marine samples, read this.
Puleeze!
Is there any particular reason you chose to pretend that you didn't understand the meaning of this sentence from the post you're responding to here?
But like any measuring system of any sort, sloppy application will result in sloppy results.Radiocarbon dating marine mollusks and *not* taking into account their limestone absorption is an example of "sloppy application" of the technique.
But this in no way invalidates the accuracy of radiocarbon dating when applied properly. Try reading more science sources, and fewer creationist ones.
One guy in Germany has been fudging, apparently sometimes completely skipping, the lab test procedures to pull dates out of his wazoo. All the evidence for Neanderthal Man from all sources has supposedly crumbled, along with every Carbon-14 date ever done.
A wisp of hope, and reason (even the ability to read) flies out the window. This kind of thing is also why I accuse creationism and its front movement ID of rooting for ignorance against the advancement of knowledge. Despite all the routine bland denials, one can see it plainly on this thread.
Creation/ID has nothing to offer but perpetual wilfull ignorance.
"Note the date on that article: 1963. What excuse do creationists have for misunderstanding or misrepresenting this issue, when it has been well understood in the scientific community FOR OVER FORTY YEARS? I guess the creationists are a little behind on their reading, eh? "
again, im going to have to play devil's advocate here. understand i know where you are coming from, but i simply have so many doubts on this issue.
you claim the scientific community knew something for 40 years. this is the same community that has spewed out global warming claims. this is the same community that backed up the Church's Flat Earth theory, along with Center of the Universe beliefe. they also, aside from the Church, but with it's backing had Alchemy as a respected study at one point, for centuries.
i do understand the context, and i agree with you that they found their mis-step. this, however, is not what i am attacking. i am attacking the idea of a 54 year old method as being held in standing with the Theory of Gravity. that one has been tried and true for generations. we still have the generation that discovered it walking around (though the respected Dr. Libby passed away before my time) this makes it less than classical science. it still needs a few more decades to become that.
"But this in no way invalidates the accuracy of radiocarbon dating when applied properly. Try reading more science sources, and fewer creationist ones."
why not simply read both in equal time? i do, and i stay skeptical of both to a degree. one source of info will get you a liberal's mind-set.