Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

He must be talking about this.As they report, the oldest subfossil wood they could find was 9,400 years old. Obviously they don't claim that this is evidence for a young Earth, because they're not nuts in the head.The trees in question are not "tropical", they are Siberian larches.You see why creationists avoid giving references?

Okay, in that case there's a couple of things you should know.First, the Siberian larch, as its name suggests, is not a tropical tree.Second, there is no reason to suppose that the Earth is no older than the oldest subfossil wood on the Yamal Peninsula. On the contrary, the Earth can't be younger than that; but there's no reason at all why it shouldn't be older, is there?Oh, and here's a table of their data.

When you find evidence that any of it was tropical, let me know.This is highly unlikely given that we have a 9,400 year record of Siberian larches growing there; and tropical vegetation and Siberian larches are suited to different climates. According to Wikipedia (I can't find a better reference, sorry) geologists say the Yamal peninsula itself is only about 10,000 years old, so the wood on it is hardly going to be older. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Also, you should find out how radiometric dating works. Of course they are not finding the age of the atoms, that would be pointless, not to mention impossible.

I have looked at what this notorious liar and fraud says about a subject of which he is completely ignorant.He claims, amongst other things, that sunspots affect the decay rate.This is almost as amusing as your gibberish about polystrate fossils, and equally "educational".Education, you see, isn't just about learning what creationists say, it's about learning why it's complete crap. When you have done so, you may consider yourself educated on the subjects of which you so blithely discourse.