They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?
How long has the competitor taken to swim the 1,500 metre race?
The results of dating indicate that the altar was in use from the Mycenaean period through the late Classical period, though samples were not collected from the upper levels of the site due to possible mixing of surface sediments.
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) measurements were taken and crystallinity index values calculated, confirming that the bone samples are indeed calcined.
Before they had said that carbon dating would cause too much damage to the shroud, but scientific advancements had been made to the extent that a dating could be made from using only 5mg of cloth.
Samples were taken from the Shroud on 21 April, 1988, and given to laboratories in Arizona, Oxford and Zurich for testing.
This swimmer is competing in a 1,500 metre race and we have an accurate, calibrated wristwatch.
We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the edge of the pool our wristwatch reads and 53 seconds.
The results were, that with a 95% confidence level, that the flax plants used to create the Shroud of Turin had only come in to existence between AD1260 and AD1390. Its history is known from the year 1357, when it surfaced in the tiny village of Lirey, France.
Until recent reports from San Antonio, most of the scientific world accepted the findings of carbon dating carried out in 1988.
To ensure accuracy, control samples were given from pieces of cloth of known origin, but the origins of the control samples were not made known to the participants.
The four pieces of cloth were: The laboratories agreed not to exchange results until they had given them first to the British Museum.
So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion. So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?