What kind of mollusks? C14 dating is not used for aquatic life forms; any scientist who deals with dating techniques will tell you this.
You keep asking, so, I guess I have to keep proving it to you.
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp.58-61
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p211
“One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.” Troy L. Pewe, “Quaternary Strigraphic Nomencature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska,” Geologic Survey Professional Paper 832 (U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975) p. 30
“Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.” J.E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Jouranl of Science, vol. 276 (January, 1976), p. 54
The geologic Column came many years BEFORE radiometric dating was conceived. Dates were initially established based on NOTHING. Radiometric dating aside, the geologic column is based upon the notion that it took alot of time to form the layers. Oddly enough, layer formation has not been observed at all over the years, except when you put dirt into a jar with water and shake it up. Strange thing about that test though, is that it only takes a matter of minutes for layers to form. Science can explain this phonomena too. It has to do with the particles themselves, as they sort out by density etc (they even teach this to 4th graders).
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp.58-61
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
And what kind of snails? You could very well get incorret C14 dates if you date things that C14 can't date properly. Were these aquatic snails? If so, then you won't get anything useful from C14 dating. This is already a known limitation of C14 dating, and scientists who use C14 dating keep it in mind.
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p211
Again, an aquatic creature. Yes, it's a mammal, but it spends quite a bit of its life in the ocean and its primary diet is seafood. Once again, C14 dating isn't used on such life forms, and it is incredibly dishonest of you to use the fact that a C14-derived "age" for an organism that scientists already know fits a standard for life forms not testable with C14 as "proof" that C14 dating is unreliable.
“One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.” Troy L. Pewe, “Quaternary Strigraphic Nomencature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska,” Geologic Survey Professional Paper 832 (U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975) p. 30
I was wondering about this one, but it turns out that this particular creationist claim is a flat-out lie.
You hear that, RaceBannon? You are using a
lie to support your claim that evolution is false. I guess, by the reasoning that you used previously, that this PROVES that creationism is false.
(Well, no, it doesn't really, but I was just applying your logic to the situation).
“Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.” J.E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Jouranl of Science, vol. 276 (January, 1976), p. 54
Now I know that you're just digging quotes out of some creationist trash, without even doing a little bit of fact checking. If you had, you'd see that the quote here is inaccurate. It is deliberately and dishonestly altered from the original by selectively omitting sentences without notice and altering the order in which sentences occur.
See http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/mark-fox.htm
Come back when you have an argument that isn't founded upon
lies.