Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

One of the ways to disprove evolutionary time scales is using radiometry. (Darwin's 'Origin of Species' was published in 1859, a century before radiocarbon dating was discovered) Even though many archaeologists have accepted radiocarbon dating as a good technique to determine the age of fossils, there are still some who do not accept this technique as it gives results that completely contradict their beliefs.
Every book on human evolution still maintain that rhodesian man (homo rhodesiensis) existed about 200000 years ago. Radiocarbon dating yielded an age of roughly 10000 years. (Science Vol 144, pg 1000) This implies that this fossil is the remains of someone who died because of the great flood. In that same article, the authors wrote, "There is no known natural mechanism by which collagen (organic carbon in bone) may be altered to yield a false age." (Science Vol 144, pg 999)In the summer of 1931, Gustav Riek excavated a newly discovered archaeological site in a small cave in southwestern Germany called Vogelherd. He and his team recovered several hominid bones and remarkable artifacts, such as a carved ivory horse, mammoth and bison, which he dated to the Aurignacian (35000 years ago). These were recently carbon dated to be between 3,900 to 5,000 years old. (Refer Geotimes, 2004 September)Another example is coal. According to the geologic column, it takes several hundred million years for coal to form. Coal samples yield a radiocarbon age of only several thousand years.Even today, when you hear someone saying that they have found a dinosaur fossil 100 million years old, it is not because of radiocarbon dating, but simply because the geologic column says that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Radiocarbon dating on dinosaurs have yielded dates more than 10000 years. (Refer BlackSheepBistro.com is for sale | HugeDomains)If evolutionists are right in maintaining that life started a few billion years ago, 99% of fossils would yield a radiocarbon date of more than 10000 years. But according to radiocarbon databases, more than 90% of fossils have an age less than 10000 years. This is in spite of the fact that we have instruments that can measure ages up to 70000 bp. (Refer The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404))

Bone fragments from the 30 ft. long Acrocanthosaurus dinosaur, excavated by members of CEM of Glen Rose TX and CRSEF of Columbus OH (Carl Baugh, Collector), were subjected to the radiocarbon dating process at three different laboratories. Again this was an attempt to falsify the fossil foot print evidence and the successful radiocarbon dating of carbonized wood from the cretaceous period. Table 3 lists these dates and for those of four other samples from four separate excavations of other dinosaurs; three came from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh PA. As you will note the dates ranged from about 9,890 to 36,500 radiocarbon years (Beta system) before the present (B.P.).The expensive accelerated mass spectrometer (AMS) gave the most reproducible dates namely 23,760 +/-270 B.P. at the prestigious University of Arizona National Academy of Science facilities and 25,750 +/-280 at an overseas AMS Lab; the sample at the former was surface scrapings with a carbon content of 3.5% and the latter was a gaseous sample from the crushing of about 180 grams of bone fragments.Other fragments were dated by a third laboratory using the beta counter; dates of 32,400 and 36,500 were obtained. These along with 39,500 B.P. for dinosaur coprolyte found buried with Acrocanthosaurus were some 7,000 or so years older than the dates obtained with the highly respected AMS. It is important to note that the 32,400 B.P. date was obtained on the same sample that was dated overseas on the more sensitive AMS system which gave a date of 25,750 +/-280 years B.P. A sample of the same carbon dioxide gas was used in both systems with the 7,000 years younger date being obtained on the AMS.
Because the AMS appears to be the choice of radiocarbon dating experts today; and, because the AMS is assigned very low +/-deviations we tend to believe the lower dates as true values for the radiocarbon dating process. But, of course, not the true dates. The carbon dating assumptions are thought to give radiocarbon dates that are still too high based on the discoveries of Dr. Libby (5), and interpretations of Whitelaw (6) and Aardsma (11) and others. The true dates are still elusive. However, reducing the dinosaur age by 1,000 times is no small discovery.