If you want to learn about radiocarbon dating, I have included some links below.
But I still need you to show me how radiocarbon dating past 6,000 years is incorrect. All you have done is link to religious apologists comments.
You need to use science in your argument if you want scientists to pay any attention. And creation "science" is not going to cut it. Just one quick example--don't some of these folks calibrate the radiocarbon method by reference to the global flood? What a joke!
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsRadiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating
by Tas Walker
Long-age geologists will not accept a radiometric date unless it matches their pre-existing expectations.
Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable (box below).
However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.
It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/radiometric.asp
Evolutionists are full of assumptions, just like Creationists.
We operate from a different paradigm and deal with the data accordingly.
Both schools have scientists, and come to the same conclusion when dealing with objective evidence.
What they disagree with is over the implications of the evidence.