Potholer defends Carbon dates

On the first minutes of this video, I must say he has a point about reservoir effect being a known exception to good working of carbon dating. Kent Hovind has vaccillated between "carbon dating doesn't work" and - at least once in a video and on his Dr Dino site - "if there was less carbon back when x is from ...". Potholer took on the former take, which isn't mine, I present my elaboration of that latter take which is mine.

Carbon dating doesn't work -- debunked
potholer54 | 20.V.2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY

After the first minutes, potholer will however go onto more controversial ground:

I

5:36 The problem with your reasoning here is, you are presuming everything dino or sth like that is completely permineralised.

Not true if you saw up dino bones like Armitage did.

6:54 And Armitage has done this to freshly found dino bones, with no shellac on them.

7:24 And since back then, Armitage has found dino collagen in bones.

II

Now, I am a YEC, I believe radiocarbon does work, outside reservoir effect, and I also believe radiocarbon is routinely calibrated to account for diverse amounts of carbon 14 in atmosphere in comparison to carbon 12.

HOWEVER, I also do believe that a young earth creationist calibration can be done and I have actually made several attempts at such.

For Biblical timeline, I use the one of Roman Martyrology (Creation 5199 BC, Flood 2957 BC, Abraham born 2015 BC, Exodus 1510 BC). Next question is, how did carbon levels rise during this period?

With Mark Armitage's work (which you haven't looked at, you prefer an old story where shellac can be blamed), dinos from what I now think is early post-Flood times (his would be from Morrisson and Hell Creek formations, mainly), date to sth like 26 000 - 20 000 BC or 28 000 to 22 000 BP.

Why do I think carbon date for 2957 BC is earlier? Bc last Neanderthal skeleta seem to be carbon dated to 40 000 BP. Now, Australia has been reached, they say, 60 000 BP - except, that is not a carbon date, that is a thermoluminiscence date. The carbon dates for Mungo man or Mungo woman are compatible for my calibration of post-Flood still times of Noah.

Other discrepancy, a French author* claimed a cave in Greece, Asprochaliko, had been dated to 45 000 to 8 000 BP.

• 1) Same cave could have been used both pre- and post-Flood;
• 2) It could be thermoluminiscence, not carbon
• 3) Or, since it is a marine cave, earliest remnant could have been dated older due to reservoir effect.

I am not yet clear which.

Either way, the general idea is like this:

Creation vs. Evolution : New Scan for Carbon Curves
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/10/new-scan-for-carbon-curves.html

Which as you can see, is a very far cry from "carbon dating doesn't work".

* Jean-Claude Poursat, La Grèce préclassique, p. 14 (Seuil, April 1995 edition).