OK... I know I'm coming into this late but......
Wibble: Is anyone else having difficulty with this, or is it just Mike and BK ?
Blitzking stated that just one dino bone with no measureable C14 would prove Genesis false. Instead of the contaminated bones that the YEC group had dated (and I have given very sound, referenced reasons for why those dates should not be regarded as valid, reasons that neither of you have addressed), I have pointed out where Pleistocene mammal bones have produced infinite dates, that is no measureable C14, which Blitz is in denial about even though it came from his source. There are also infinite dates in the Higham et al paper I linked.Mike nowhere have I said that all the 360 samples in Blitz' link were infinite dates, please read what I write more carefully. All I had to show, in the light of Blitz' assertion, was just one infinite date
Yes but you heavily implied no measurable C14 you said; "In the introduction they mention some dates for Pleistocene mammal material:...You won’t know this but where the date is prefixed by “>” as in “greater than” that means the sample is dated at infinite age i.e no measureable C14. So thanks for that."
"So thanks for that" as though you had proven them infinite for the Pleistocence, and then you said this also; "The Pleistocene material is not dinosaur bones but that doesn't matter. They had no measureable C14 so by your own criterion, Genesis has been proven false"
So if you weren't saying the Pleistocene specimens were all infinite, then I must say the language you used certainly was strongly implying that you wanted to argue zero C14.
From my own perspective I don't agree that one example of no C14 would prove anything much because even if there is no C14 at all that doesn't mean a specimen is millions of years, it could still be thousands. While it may be conceivable that somehow C14 could be somehow vanquished sooner through accelerated elements for whatever obscure reason, to believe it could last many millions of years seems the impossible part to me.
Specifically, what the ">" means as used in the original paper is that they can't tell if the sample is 53,000 years old or 53,000,000 years old. This is that the detectible 14C is below the limits of the equipment used.
The lab can not legitimately apply an "infinite" age to the sample. All they can say is that it is older than they can tell using the technology they have.
This is exactly what Blitz claimed would be the end-game for creationism .... a sample with no detectable 14C.
You are correct a sample with no detectable 14C would not prove millions of years. Carbon dating is totally inappropriate for that. There are multiple other dating methods that demonstrate not only millions, but BILLIONS of years as the age of the Earth.
A process that would "vanquish" 14C without also removing 12C doesn't exist. Nor is it "conceivable." Not without destruction of the sample.
Don't forget our position as creationists, is not that we hold any dating method as brilliantly reliable, so when I say, "this could mean the flood was older, say 12,000 years" or along those lines, just as easily it could mean that it is the dating methods that are off base and the flood was 5,000 years ago, so the dating method is off by that much rather than the estimate of the flood being off.
We can hardly forget the position of creationists. Creationists hold that any evidence contradicting their (literal) view of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION. This is clearly documented in the Statement of Faith published by multiple Creationist ministries and scientific organizations. It is also consistent with the behavior of most creationists and arguments put forward by them.
For that reason, they hold all radiometric dating methods are UNreliable. They account for 14C readings over 6000 years with a claim that there was no atmospheric 14C before the flood; that the atmosphere was created with no 14C; or accelerated decay.