[stormer]

I would argue that it it the right test, and falsifies your hypothesis. In the case of dating it is important to use a metric that has value. For example, if I using a test that provides a value that I know is accurate to within 10 million years, it provides a useful result if the object I'm dating is a billion year old (no Helen Thomas pictures, please); if the tested object is a year old, then the test doesn't tell me much at all.

[AndyTheBear]

I would argue that it it the right test, and falsifies your hypothesis. In the case of dating it is important to use a metric that has value. For example, if I using a test that provides a value that I know is accurate to within 10 million years, it provides a useful result if the object I'm dating is a billion year old (no Helen Thomas pictures, please); if the tested object is a year old, then the test doesn't tell me much at all.

Well that is what I am doing with my bowling ball. Of course bowling balls obey commands, so I would never use a test that would show otherwise. Likewise, of course the dino bone is too old for C14, so using a C14 test is meaningless.

What you don't seem to understand is that bowling ball command theory is absolute fact. It can not be falsified, because tests that would falsify it are inappropriate.