Pathlights doesn't appear to use these "anomalous" radiocarbon dates, but our ol' buddy Kent Hovind has them on
his website:
A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211
"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.
You see these pretty frequently on these forums....
I was able to find the actual papers for the first two, and it makes you wonder just a little about the motives and integrity of Hovind or whoever looked them up for him. The full citations are:
A C Riggs, "Major Carbon-14 Deficiency in Modern Snail Shells from Southern Nevada Springs",
Science, 224, pp 58-61, (1984)
and
M L Keith and G M Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells,"
Science, 141, pp 634-637 (1963).
Both articles are "cautionary tales" for others doing radiocarbon dating: be sure that the organism you are dating got its 14C from the atmosphere, not from ancient ground water. In Riggs' study, the snails picked up most of their carbon from bicarbonate with a 14C content of about 3% of modern - the water was from springs fed by an aquifer that is recharged tens of miles away - the water has been underground for thousands of years. K & A's study is similar, but their shells were influenced by ground water that had flowed through 3000+ year old humus.
Each paper carefully sets out the reasons for odd dates, and warns other researchers to be aware of these effects. It is inconceivable to me that the original quote-miner, Hovind or whoever, could not have realized this, and cited these articles knowing that 99.9% of his readers would never look them up. Even reading the titles gives it away: "fictitious results" should tell most readers that something's up. I'd say "disingenuous," but "lying like a yellow dog" probably is the better term.
™ Version 4.2
