Feedback about reliability of dating

Jake - from post #12 at http://EvC Forum: Carbon-14: A Scientifically Proven Dating Method?
the 2300-year old living mollusk is this: There is another, similar YEC claim of 27,000 year ages on living snails - this is extracted from "Major Carbon-14 Deficiency in Modern Snail Shells from Southern Nevada Springs" A C Riggs, Science, v 224, pp 58-61 (1984). These have a similar cause, as the springs where the snails grew are fed by groundwater loaded with ancient ( 14C depleted) carbon in the form of bicarbonate.As to old dates for seal meat: what species of seal? What do they eat? I doubt if it's escargot, but I'll bet that the original reference knows and explains why the got old dates. They run consecutive page numbers for all the issues in a volume, which is months' worth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences gets page numbers up over 10,000! Bigger than Modern Bride, even!

We also have other evidence for nearer that date, though - no coins later than that Roman year are buried there, and a volcanic ash layer in the GRIP (?) ice core from Greenland was counted to be within seven years of 79 AD. R D Alley did the work, but I don't have a citation at hand.

The first two links you give disagree pretty badly with each other, too: the second claims errors of four years or so, while the first claims a few millenia. There's plenty enough C-14 and uranium/thorium dates, as well as lake varves and ice layers, to confine dates as young as Roman times to within a few decades of the generally accepted ones. I don't see too much point in worrying about much greater accuracy than that.

Hmmmm. The author didn't read Schweitzer's paper. What she found was that when she dissolved away the rock making up the bulk of the fossil, the demineralized remnants were flexible.It's a pretty sure bet that the Hell Creek Formation is over 65,000,000 years old. What's lacking, as Schweitzer points out, is a few bits of knowledge about the variety of ways things can get fossilized.And hello, Sardonica!

No, carbon-14 dating is completely silent on any dates at all past 50,000 years or so. It's essentially all decayed by then, and can't be used. Much like trying to lay out a racetrack for a marathon with a one-inch dial micrometer, it's just the wrong tool.I'll be away from home most all weekend, so I can't promise any immediate links, but I remember that volcanic ashfall layers within the Hell Creek fm. were used in dating, most likely by potassium-argon or argon-argon. That, and the "iridium layer" that caps the Cretaceous (which contains the Hell Creek) has been dated by at least four independent methods at a couple dozen places around the world. And they all agree at 64.7 million years, plus or minus a few. ....completely ignore the extensive literature that actually reconstructs the history of C14 content of the atmosphere for the last 38,000 years. It's been correlated with tree rings, lake varves, ocean-bottom varves, uranium-thorium dates of corals, ice layers from twenty or so spots around the world, stalagmites.....They're bluffing, and hoping their intended audience doesn't know (or care) where to go to check up on them.

Ummmm....Answers in Genesis has just about finished their $25,000,000 "creation museum" up by Cinncinnati. Doesn't sound like chicken feed....

The ashfall from 79 AD has also been dated by argon-argon methods, and to within +/- 94 years: Renne, et al., Science 29 August 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5330, pp. 1279 - 1280: