Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating

Yeah, and he ran like a rabbit, never to return, from Dr. Bertsche already.

And two, how is the average joe blow out here who never works in this field supposed to know the truth?

One word: Wrestling.

4) What does it mean that this wood was "fossilized"? Presumably it was hardened by mineral deposits. Do these minerals contain any carbon or carbonates? Could this undergo subsequent carbon exchange with their environment, similar to shells or bone? How confident are they that ALL carbon-containing minerals were removed by chemical pretreatment? . . .6) "The laboratory (Beukens 2007 a, b) reported that the dried residues of the petrified wood sub-samples (RNCW-1, 2, 3, 4A) at this point in the procedure did not have any wood structure and resembled detrital material. ... their carbon contents were low (typically 10%)" This is a red flag; it means that none of the wood cellulose remained after pretreatment! (And I suspect that IsoTrace suggested at this point that the sample was not worth dating.) What was the "wood" material that they actually dated?

Yes, and the best way to do this is to find a "radiocarbon-dead" sample of the same type of material and to prepare it in parallel with the unknown samples, using the same chemical reagents, the same batch of glassware, the same combustion and graphitization procedures, the same analysis run in the AMS system, etc. Then treat this "radiocarbon-dead" sample as a total process background to be subtracted. This way any surprises due to contaminated chemicals, dirty ion source, etc. are captured and subtracted out.

The evolutionists such as coyote spend a lot of their time calling creationists works bad science and/or lying, but it is the evolutionists here who operate from anonymity making their charges while the creationists put their name on their works and when you read the articles you find them well sourced etc.
It seems all the evolutionist can do is throw his stones from the cloak of anonymity. That alone should be telling to an outsider observing the debate.The evolutionists such as coyote spend a lot of their time calling creationists works bad science and/or lying, but it is the evolutionists here who operate from anonymity making their charges while the creationists put their name on their works and when you read the articles you find them well sourced etc.
It seems all the evolutionist can do is throw his stones from the cloak of anonymity. That alone should be telling to an outsider observing the debate.

Morris, on the other hand, made outrageous claims and then never bothered to test to see if they were actually viable.

I went over there and that's a ton to read from a laymen's perspective but I fail to see where anyone, kbertsche, Baumbgardner, or anyone over there is getting "their ass handed to them."

The end result is an estimate or guess of what the age of the article is, and it should be given no more weight than that.

It is my understanding that during the approach to the measurement of the curve of infinity is absurd.
Well, that just proves that only a ruler to measure the radiocarbon dating does not make sense.
I understand you correctly?
I think Mr. Kayot it will be interesting.