And if pigs had wings...
One has to actually address the issue.
Yes. That's why I did exactly that.
Despite all the long winded arguments, sometimes it takes a only a simple approach to discover valid data. What do you think, if the item was organic or not, how could it have read 32,000 years old in 200,000 year old sandstone without bringing radio-metrics in question?
Because the authors didn't even bother to determine if it was originally in the sandstone or entered it later, nor whether it had been affected by internal contamination. Duh.
This was explained quite clearly in those "long winded arguments" you obviously didn't bother to read.
If the item was wood, there is an excuse, but if it is stone, there is no excuse. If the lab cannot even recognize between wood and stone, is any data valid!
Clue for the clueless -- it's not the lab's job to "recognize" what the sample was. The lab determines how much radiocarbon is inside it. Period.
The task of determining the source and kind of material -- and whether it is in any way appropriate for radiocarbon dating in the first place -- is the job of the *submitter*. You know, those creationist clowns.
Sheesh, long worded arguments often hide an empty purse.
Indeed they do, which is why the creationists were long-winded. Here's the short form: The creationists lied about what the lab did and did not do, and lied about what the results actually indicate.
Short enough for you?
Arn't the problems obvious to all but the most faithful?
Yes, the problem of creationists lying in order to dishonestly "discredit" valid science is indeed obvious to all, except the most faithful followers of the creationist propagandists.
You could have a lot more credibility with a "gee, I don't know" once and a while guy.
If the occasion should arise when I don't know something, I'll gladly admit it. That's not the case here, though.