Jeremy,
I am surprised you are posting this question again after getting several good answers, but I admire your persistence. Unfortunately, your argument still contains many premises that are incorrect. You say above that you want to get "a few things straight", so let's do just that:
1. You refer above to "One comment was that at such small amounts of Carbon 14 mistakes could be made". If you are referring to what I said in my previous posting, you misunderstood what I said and are misrepresenting it here. I do not debate the findings of the team of measurable amounts of C-14 in these materials. C-14 is produced in the atmosphere via cosmic radiation and there are many mechanisms by which it could enter a material. You are assuming that all of the C-14 in these materials originating from what were once equilibrium concentrations that have decayed over thousands of years. What I debate is this assumption, which is only one of several possibilities and is the ONE possibility that favors your argument. It is unfair for you to assume C-14 dating to be valid for EVERY material and then try to assign ages to any material you want based on its C-14 concentration. If you still feel at liberty to do this and are convinced that it provides a case for a young earth, than you do not have a sufficient understanding of C-14 dating to be using it in any sort of argument at all.
2. You also say above "When lava is dated using this method when the actual age is known, like lava from a known historical eruption hundreds of years old or decades, the results of radioactive dating not only produces different dates with each radioactive substance they all come out in millions of years old. And disagree with each other by millions of years for the same rock".
You need to do some fact checking. In the vast majority of instances, the results of different radiometric techniques agree with each other amazingly well, and ALSO agree with the historically known ages of deposits. Getting inconsistent results between these methods is the exception and not the rule. Arguing a case using false premises is not a very good tactic, but in fairness, you have probably been misinformed and I'm sure you are not trying to spread misinformation on purpose. Also, it is well known that C-14 does not come from uranium and I'm not sure why you bring it up.
3. You cite "salt accumulation and other minerals being added to the sea, dust accumulation from space on the moon, sediment acumulation in the ocean, the accumulation of helium in the atmosphere, other short lived radioactive isotopes, speed of erosion of water falls, speed of erosion of mountains, amount of desert varnish formed on rocks, deteriation of the magnetic field, shrinking of the sun" as "clocks" that give "ages of thousands of years". Of course some of these measurements, in some places, will give ages of thousands of years. Maybe the desert varnish on a rock has only been accumulating for thousands of years, that doesn't indicate that the EARTH is only thousands of years old. You are trying to take a broad variety of geological techniques, some of which have little to do with each other, and oversimplifying them to be pointing towards just one result. Not a SINGLE ONE of the things you list gives an age of the earth of thousands of years. You have not provided any evidence that they do. Don't just give a laundry list of geologic processes whose rates can be measured and then claim that they all indicate a young earth without providing any data or explanation. If you think that ANY of these things indicate a young earth, you have a number of grave misunderstandings about how geologic science is conducted.
4. The statement I made in my previous posting about YOUR assumption is not a contradiction at all, and you don't seem to explain why you think that it is. "Evolution" does NOT predict that the amount of C-14 in any material older than 50,000 years should be zero. (Rather, it predicts only that C-14 levels that START OUT at equilibrium values will decay through time at a predictable rate). You seem to want very much for this to be true, but IT ISN'T. You can't put words in geologists' mouths and then try to shoot them down for things they didn't say. As I've already explained, there are a number of ways that C-14 can get into a material, and background science into the possible histories of a material must be done before it is known whether C-14 dating of a material can be valid. My comment shows no bias... rather, YOUR comments show bias because you are choosing from among SEVERAL different explanations for an observation, and claiming that ONLY the explanation that supports your viewpoint is possible.
5. "The problem is you have not considered the fact that 98% of science is handled by biased evolutionists, and you object to a few biased creationists". You make an observation, and give it a HORRIBLY skewed interpretation. Yes, OF COURSE 98% of science is handled by "evolutionists". This is because 98% (or more) of scientists are convinced of the evidence that exists for evolution!!!! This is a lot like trying to make people feel sorry for the view of aristotelian mechanics by pointing out that 99% of physics is handled by "biased gravitationalists". Yes, Jeremy, you are correct that 98% of science is handled by evolutionists. Those pesky evolutionists have all been "biased" by the enormous amount of evidence that supports evolution. And BTW, creationists are NOT more honest by any stretch of the imagination, as THEY are the ones putting misinformation into public forums. You are unwittingly helping them do so with the misinformation you have put in this posting, whether you realize it or not.
You are paranoid and delusional. "Evolutionists" are not trying to brainwash anyone. Evolution is accepted because there is massive amounts of evidence that have been accumulated by many different researchers in different fields of study over many years, not because there is some kind of conspiracy to silence your view. Your view was considered and rejected by the scientific community long ago. These scientists get funding for their activities because they do careful and legitimate research, NOT the other way around. You need to go back to the books, get your facts straight, and then return with real information before you make any more postings like this one.
Edit:
Sorry, another of your pieces of misinformation that I accidently forgot to shoot down. These reports you cite of human tracks alongside dinosaur tracks have all been shown to be invalid... they've been found to simply be tracks of different types of dinosaurs. But this doesn't seem to stop creationists from clinging to the reports and citing them over and over again.... they have VERY selective hearing when it comes to erroneous results.
Another edit, because you just don't seem to get it:
Timeponderer is 100% right, it is not up to every scientist to keep every piece of scientific information in their heads at all times. Timeponderer happened to be aware of an interesting and recently discovered mode of radioactivity that I was not aware of that produces C-14 nuclei. Based on my understanding of radioactivity (which is still well above the layman's understanding), it was very reasonable for me to assume that C-14 is not produced by uranium, but Timeponderer was aware of an unusual piece of information that is somewhat counterintuitive. These sorts of minor discrepencies and gaps in knowledge about little known phenomena are not a grounds for dismissing either one of our arguments. I was making no attempt to sound overly "scientific" and hope that others will not question my statement. I was simply trying to give an intellectually honest (and reality grounded) analysis of your statements to the best of my ability. Since we have resolved the discrepency that you are so concerned about, it is worth noting that the fact that C-14 CAN be produced by uranium is yet another reason to not trust the assumption of your original question, which was that the presence of C-14 in a material is from organic carbon that has decayed over thousands of years, and that therefore the age of these materials is thousands of years. I have told you REPEATEDLY that this assumption is not valid, and NOWHERE in the subsequent misinformed rantings you have posted have you made ANY attempt to defend this original assumption that your ENTIRE ARGUMENT rests on.
As for your comments about the circular reasoning and selective choosing of radiometric dating techniques, you are once again misinformed. There are NO "evolutionary assumptions" or circular reasoning behind these methods. They are based on PHYSICS. The physics of radioactive decay is very well understood and has been experimentally verified beyond any shadow of a doubt. When these methods are applied to date rocks, they almost always yield results that are consistent with other dating methods, and establish a shockingly consistent chronology of rock formations on earth from about 3.6 billion years to present day. These dates involve no hidden assumptions that are not already checked during the method itself. Whenever a radiometric date is rejected, it is rejected because there is a well-defined reason for not trusting it that is SEPARATE from the date that was obtained. Dates are never thrown out simply because they don't agree with preconceived notions. Again, if you actually understood how radiometric methods work and are applied, you would know this and would not make these ridiculous statements about imaginary inconsistencies. You have almost no understanding of the methods you are trying to criticize, and yet in your arrogance you seem to have NO problem whatsoever in assuming that our methods are wrong. You continue to make arguments using premises that are completely false, and when we call you on it, you divert attention to something as inane as the fact that I had not previously heard of radium isotopes emitting C-14 nuclei. This gap in my knowledge of trace element geochemistry is miniscule compared to the basic understanding of radiometric dating methods that you apparently lack even at the most fundamental level.
Your comment about evolution not being proven again shows how ignorant you are of how science is done. No theory in the history of science has never been "proven". Science is not in the business of proving anything. Science is in the business of making observations and testing hypotheses, and then using the results from these tests to formulate an explanatory framework for the workings of nature that is consistent with all the available data. You never prove anything, you simply gather evidence that the theory provides an accurate picture of nature. The theory of evolution has withstood decades of tests of its validity, and every piece of information gathered so far supports the idea of evolution taking place on this planet over a 4.5 billion year history. If you are not convinced of this evidence, fine. But you are terribly self-deluded if you think that multiple generations of scientists (with no preconcieved notions, as YOU obviously have) who have worked out these things are simply making stuff up in some sort of conspiracy to silence your viewpoint, and you are terribly arrogant if you think you can argue against this evidence without any working knowledge of how it was gathered.
If you wish to continue this discussion, provide real evidence that the original materials you cite have C-14 that arose ONLY from the decay of equilibrium concentrations from organic materials and not from the numerous contamination sources that we have explained to you. It would also help you to do some background reading on C-14 dating and other radiometric techniques so that you have the background knowledge you need to carry out an intelligent and intellectually honest discussion. Otherwise, concede this point to the people who know what they are talking about.
A message to Berean:
As someone who always shows respect for other people's beliefs, I have no problem with you practicing your religious faith, and you have every right to believe the things you say in your answer. It seems, however, like you aren't showing very much respect for MY beliefs and are only using your answer to try and push your own beliefs instead of answering Jeremy's question. People who study rocks, fossils, etc. are generally really nice people! We are not out to attack your beliefs. We are not out to disprove God. We are not in league with the devil. We're just really curious people who want to understand the wonders of nature, and we enjoy going out into the world to learn about how it works. It is not fair of you to stereotype all of us as being "led down the path of the devil", and I think your attitude shows a lot of closed-mindedness and intolerance that I would NEVER have towards your beliefs. You should try to open your mind a little and imagine what it would be like to go out into the world to see amazing things, and then experience the thrill of trying to figure out where they came from. And try getting to know a geologist... you'll be surprised what good and generous people they are.