Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

I am very sceptical that radiometric dating technique could prove or disprove much since all C14 dating depends on the assumption that datable specimens have not been contaminated or that there has been no addition or loss of c14 through factors other than by decay. This assumption needs a lot of faith because while genetisists are quick to point out the potential of modern contamination of archaic DNA it seems to me that there would be an even higher rate of contamination of c14 in the "ground". It also seems that the higher rate of the sun and earth's internal heat and volcanic activity in the past would would hugely disrupt any equilibrium?Soon after Libby’s discovery, “radio carbon dating swept the scientific world with a fervor of religious fanaticism, as a new and ”absolute’ chronology was established (Lee, 1981 p.9 Anthropological journal of Canada 19 (3). These early physicists were supposedly measuring anything with a hint of carbon including dinosaurs as seen mostly in the Radio carbon Journal.“it should be noted that most dinosaur bones actually retain much of the original calcium and phosphatic minerals they possessed in life. As such, the phrase "turned to stone"--often used to describe fossil bone--is misleading.” (Scientific American 1996) We're Sorry - Scientific AmericanA google search reveals about five species of dinosaurs have representative fossils containing soft tissues as well, which by the way is always discovered accidentally since not many modern scientists in their right mind would ever believe soft tissue could be preserved for millions of years.To me dating dinosaur bones with C14 better fits Occam's Razor than via dating the bones based on rocks that where dated by indexed bones or even directly by surrounding rocks that undoubtedly contain percolation from above or even below.Its true that c14 could never be used on a completly mineralized fossil but I should also point out that a specimen need not be mineralized to be considered a fossil by most definitions.
define:fossil - Google Search Edited by Peleg, : spellingEdited by Peleg, : No reason given.

Thank you Sir!I just glanced at your suggested thread and the posts already look authoritative.Before I delve more into the thread I want to ask you if I could use some of my own opinions as long they are backed up with popular scientific journals?Thank you again!

Ok but the best scientist don't always go with the general consensus and I would say that there are at least a hundred good examples were the general scientific consensus was dead wrong and often deadly.There are a lot references of dinosaur soft-tissue being found and to me it suggests that the general consensus is once again wrongEdited by Peleg, : No reason given.

Keresu how exiting! Your imaging of bootcamp and burnings almost sounds like a modern day wich-hunt thriller-in a Freudian transferencial sence that is!I want to tell you though that I would't mind starting a topic concerning your " all a man's knowledge comes from his experience" because a whole lot of new studies on predator induced phenotypes seem to prove a sort of inborn knowledge. What do you think and thanks for the soft tissue refs. Here is one example of many.Just a moment...Oh an Anglagard, a little sassyness from behind your key board never hurt nobody so Thanks and be real dudes !Edited by Peleg, : No reason given.Edited by Peleg, : No reason given.