NOBODY dated it. Here is the ICR article where they referred to a Swedish study of Mosasaur specimen: http://www.icr.org/article/6084/ . Second paragraph, last line: "One of those analyses was carbon dating". When you go to the Swedish article, see http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F1... , and go to the section, go to the "Rationale for excluding fungal growth and animal glue as potential collagen sources" section. The researchers C14 dated the specimen BECAUSE they wanted MODERN organic traces to be detected to distinguish them form the Mosasaur components. They DID NOT try to date the Mosasaur components as such.<quoted text>
Not over 50,000 years or so you can't. Any soft tissue older that that still could not be accurately dated by C14. IOW, once you get to the lower limit, you're hitting a brick wall.
And who dated the soft tissue?
Maybe you need to learn the basics.
The reason for this is because the pertaining specimen had been kept for decades in a Belgium museum. Hence the risk of contamination by modern organic substances like bone glue (used for preservation purposes) and of course bacteria.
Now let's compare the ICR deceit with the real report:
ICR: "The researchers found plenty of C-14 in their mosasaurenough to calculate "an age of 24,600 BP [years before present]."2 To explain how any C-14 could be present at all after millions of years, the study authors speculated that the C-14 could have come from recent bacteria. But this doesn't fit well with the data, since "no bacterial proteins or hopanoids [cholesterol-like compounds] were detected.""
Original article: "Likewise, the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small, corresponding to 4.68%±0.1 of modern 14C activity (yielding an age of 24 600 BP), and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected, one bacterial DNA sequence was amplified by PCR, and microscopic clusters of bone-boring cyanobacteria were seen in places along the perimeter of the diaphyseal cortex). Two short DNA sequences of possible lagomorph origin were amplified by PCR (together with three human sequences), and consequently it is possible that the outer surface of the bone has been painted with animal glue at some point".
I shall compare again on the crucial parts:
ICR: "The researchers found plenty of C-14"
Article: "the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small"
ICR: "the study authors speculated"
Article: didn't speculate AT ALL
ICR: "since "no bacterial proteins or hopanoids [cholesterol-like compounds] were detected."
Article: "and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected, one bacterial DNA sequence was amplified by PCR, and microscopic clusters of bone-boring cyanobacteria were seen in places along the perimeter of the diaphyseal cortex"
Note that the ICR AS ALWAYS uses the old creationist's trick of QUOTE MINING by DELIBERATELY leaving away the unwanted parts.
The C14 found was due to modern bacteria and animal glue as well as human DNA.
I also shall quote another conclusion of the article:
"Additionally, some fiber bundles are partially mineralized (Figure 8), providing convincing evidence for their antiquity". INDEED.
Ladies and gentlemen, behold how creationist's deceit works.