Yes, please do track down one or two obscure points and pretend the following statement “By this time tens of thousands of C14 dates have been published from tests performed by various laboratories around the world. In the annual volumes in which the dates are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological age notions” doesn’t exist as fact.
And pretend one APPARENT mistake renders the other facts listed on the site invalid- it’s funny to watch evos jump on a few mistakes as their only defenses against other true facts. When evos make mistakes- all sorts of excuses are made- when evos hide the truth and print half truths that are easily refutted- no explanations are given- Yet when a Creo makes a mistake- why then He’s automatically dismissed entirely-
By the way- that site trueorigins you listed refutes TONS of mistakes, half-truths and flat out lies perpetrated by your beloved talkorigins site- But I’m sure you excuse all manner of sloppy and false articles on talkorigins while puffing out your chest and pretending that site is ‘real science’ while any creo site with a mistake or two is to be dismissed entirely- it’s really quite laughable- but hurry along- therem ight be another mistake or two on the link I gave which will serve to brush the fact thaT “In the annual volumes in which the dates are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological age notions” under the carpet.
That is next on my list to cross check. I am sure you won't like the results.
And pretend one APPARENT mistake renders the other facts listed on the site invalid...
I have demolished more than one creationist claim regarding radiocarbon dating. I have even posted them to you. Don't you remember? Or are you ignoring those posts hoping that they will go away?
I would bet that the number of radio carbon tests is in the millions not just the thousands. And it would not be at all surprising if there were some errors and that someone had at some time expressed concerns about the errors.
I suspect that would be true of any chemical, physical or biological/medical test. What’s important would the type and frequency of errors. Radiometric dating is regarded as quite reliable based on repeated tests checked independently world wide.
As with many tests, it is important to avoid contamination. But this is a critically important method and very useful.