Yeah, right!
HAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Bones from cows being called tens of thousands year old, living mollusks labeled 10,000 years old..
Puleeze!
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.