Pete, yes, it's true as I actually stated in my post, that radio-carbon dating is only valid back to an age of 50,000 years or so. It's not that it becomes "undetectable" but that the C12/C13/C14 ratio error bars, when the C14 proportion becomes very small, in effect swamp the precision of the measurement, making attempts to date beyond this increasingly inaccurate.

The fact that Carbon 14 has been detected in diamonds is irrelevant. Unlike living entities, diamonds are not made from atmospheric carbon, but are formed deep within the Earth. They naturally contain some traces of nitrogen that can be altered by decay of radioactive elements present in the diamond into C14.

Radiocarbon dating is based on the measured ratio of unstable C14 to stable C12 and C13 in atmospheric carbon dioxide...but the original ratio of these two non-atmospheric isotopes in a newly-created diamond is unknown. So any attempt to use isotope ratios in diamonds as a dating tool is a ridiculous use of the technique. The creationists at RATE who did this work KNOW that it's a ridiculous thing to do, and of no value whatsoever except in planting entirely spurious "seeds of doubt" into those of their followers who have insufficient knowledge of the true physical processes to understand themselves that they are being sold a complete "red herring".

It's a blatant attempt to deceive followers into doubting the efficacy of carbon dating of *organic* matter, because if they don't it drives a big nail into the coffin of YEC-ism. Your leaders are LYING to you and they KNOW they're doing it!

If someone wants a "get out" by saying that radioactive decay rates may have changed over the years, they need to be aware as I also said in the post above, that comparison with varve and ice core samples shows no such occurence over at least the last 40,000 years, and other calibrations take us back much further. But also look again at my last italicised paragraph in the other post. If radioactive decay had been significantly different in the past, RATE's own work shows that the required heat dissipation over a mere 6000 years would have been enough to vaporize all granite rock on earth. We'd be (not) living on a molten slag-heap if it were true!

So I've directly tackled your points in this post (though I had tackled them in the previous one somewhat less directly). Your diamond point has been refuted to its originators many times yet they continue to propagate it as evidence.

Pete...PLEASE start educating yourself rather than culling snippets of long-discredited information from publications of those who have a strong vested interest in lying to you on the (seemingly accurate) assumption that you don't actually know enough real science to understand the snake oil they're selling.