Got a source for this specific incident?
And I did recollected wrong. I apologize.
The living mollusks was carbon dated 2,300 years old dead.
Reference from Kofahl, Robert E., Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, Beta Books, San Diego, 1977, p 119 citing several scientific journals.
But according to Rick G., it doesn't count because it did not cite a specific science journal. So we are moving on.
Nonetheless, similar things have happened.
Living snails were once dated to be 2,300 years old and also 27,000 years old. However,
THIS page explains where the error comes from.
I am familiar with the origin of talkorigin as the founders created that cite to refer believers to from Delphi forums back in their early days & they were caught misrepresenting what they declared as facts and they admitted it, but continued to shovel the misrepresentation to other members by which those that had corrected them had caught them and called them out on it.
Now I can be like Rick G. and just be prejudiced towards all evolutionists sites or we can talk about what they are citing. Since the links you have given provides actual quotes from these reports, let us examine them.
The source of the 2,300-year-old radiocarbon date (Keith and Anderson 1963, discussed by Strahler 1987, 156-157), has been abused and misused to discredit radiocarbon dating. The article discussed the potential errors that the presence of "dead carbon" would introduce into the dating of mollusks. For example, carbon dioxide in the water can partially come from Paleozoic limestone, which lacks carbon-14.
As a result, the carbon dioxide in the water is deficient in carbon-14 relative to the atmosphere, and mollusks living in the water build shells that give apparent dates older than they really are. This is a type of "reservoir effect."
The 27,000 year old date comes from Riggs (1984, 224), who wrote:
Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation of dissolved HCO3- with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium.
In other words, the apparent age of 27,000 years for these snail shells is another example of the reservoir effect. The springs, from which the snails came, were fed by carbonate aquifers. As this water percolated through the enclosing carbonates, it dissolved limestone and dolomite hundreds of millions of years old. The dissolution of limestone and dolomite introduced considerable quantities of "dead carbon" into the groundwater. As a result, the groundwater which fed the spring and in which the snails lived was significantly deficient in carbon-14 relative to what is found in the atmosphere. When the snails made their shells, they incorporated an excess amount of "dead carbon," relative to modern atmosphere, into their shells,
which resulted in the excessively old apparent date.
Now let's consider this for a moment. A point has been raised against AV in the OP that fossils which came after the flood were dated older than the 6,000 years, right?
The above explanation shows why. If the water reservoir has that effect, then what about fossils found as buried in sentiments? Would that not explain why fossils give the results of older dates? I would say yes.
A living seal was dated to be 1,300 years old, but again this was an error, as explained
HERE.
Same thing:
This claim derives from Wakefield (1971):
Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, Antarctica sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct. For example, the apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years.
This is the well-known reservoir effect that occurs also with
mollusks and other animals that live in the water. It happens when "old" carbon is introduced into the water. In the above case of the seal, old carbon dioxide is present within deep ocean bottom water that has been circulating through the ocean for thousands of years before upwelling along the Antarctic coast.
Now "if" there was a world wide flood, and impact craters were not millions of years apart but happened at the time of the flood, causing the fountains of the deep to rise up, and the impact craters on the moon happened at the time of the flood which sets the moon on its course in moving slowly away from the earth, and since the moon controls the oceans tide, there would be a "swelling" of the ocean, the mist that watered the whole earth would condense from the pulling away of the moon into the upper atmosphere where it would rain for the first time on the earth, and with super volcanoes as well as regular volcanoes erupts and earthquakes forms as a result from impact craters, think science can ascertain the correct age of the earth by all of that debris in the atmosphere and the swelling of the ocean waters?
Please note that scientists are able to correct for any environmentally caused inaccuracies, and we understand the mechanism that causes the inaccuracies.
So please learn about it and do some research before you just dismiss it, okay?
I just don't believe they are accounting for everything just as they fail to realize by their scientific findings why fossils are older than 6,000 years.
Thank you for providing those links. Even though the site started out being disreputable, it does appear they have cleaned up their act, however, in those reports, it goes to answer the OP as to why the fossils are older than 6,000 years.
