Why won’t any mainstream scientists test for carbon-14 in dinosaur bones?

Because it is NOT that reliable, For example, variations in greenhouse effects and solar radiation change how much carbon-14 a living organism is exposed to, which drastically changes the “starting point” from which a radiocarbon dating test is based. Likewise, different living things absorb or reject carbon-14 at different rates. Two plants that died at the same moment, but which naturally contained different levels of radiocarbon, could be dated to drastically different times. Modern effects such as fossil fuel burning and nuclear testing have also changed atmospheric carbon-14 levels and in turn change the “starting point” for a radiocarbon test. All in all, setting the parameters of the carbon-14 test is more of an art than a science.

Contamination and repeatability are also factors that have to be considered with carbon dating. A tiny amount of carbon contamination will greatly skew test results, so sample preparation is critical. Even then, a large proportion of radiocarbon dating tests return inconsistent, or even incoherent, results, even for tests done on the same sample. The explanation given for these outliers is usually “contamination.” Inconsistent results are another reason why multiple samples, multiples tests, and various parallel methods are used to date objects.

Due to all these factors, it’s common for carbon dating results of a particular sample, or even a group of samples, to be rejected for the sole reason that they don’t align with the “expected” results. That’s not unusual in science, so far as it goes, but the relationship between assumptions and interpretations must be kept in mind. At best, it needs to be acknowledged. At worst, it can make carbon dating circular and self-confirming, though there are other means of dating that can reduce this risk.

In short, carbon dating is as useful as any other technique, so long as it’s done properly and the results are objectively interpreted. It is not, however, an inherently error-free or black-and-white method for dating objects.

That would be an inappropriate test. Fossilization replaces the organic materials in a sample with minerals. Even if there was detectable C14 left, it would no longer be present in the known ratios that makes C14 dating possible. This is also why Schweitzer's samples can't be C14 dated. She didn't find preserved, intact, soft tissue. She found fossilized remains that were able to be demineralized and rehydrated - and more than likely contaminated with modern bacteria. C14 dating isn't an all-purpose test... like ANY test in science, it works under very specific conditions.

So yes, simply put, people claiming to have valid C14 results for fossils are lying. This is also why it's not a big priority to debunk them. It's not like C14 dating a fossil sample will give you definite, this-is-old results. The test will be utterly unreliable, since it's so far outside of the conditions that it was designed to test. The original claims are also being pushed by creationinsts, which means that accuracy and intellectual honesty aren't even on the list of priorities. Their claims have ALREADY been disproved a thousand times over, yet they keep coming back. Throwing any more money at debunking those claims would be a complete waste.

Why won’t atheist evolutionary scientists test dinosaur bones for carbon 14?

Carbon 14 dating can be done only on ORGANIC material derived from living things.

Dinosaur bones tend to be heavily mineralized after the tens of, and hundreds of millions of years they have been in the earth and are therefor not suitable for Carbon 14 dating. Furthermore, during that long period, some of the minerals entering the dinosaur bones can be of radioactive elements that would throw off the reading.

The mammals you mentioned lived relatively recently, only a few thousands of years ago, and their bones tend not to be heavily mineralized, so their bones contain enough organic material to be carbon 14 dated.

The interior of the dinosaur bones containing the "soft" tissue was protected by the mineralized outer part.

Furthermore, the tissue was not soft in situ, but became soft only after it was chemically treated.

Added

Not carbon 14. There are other radioactive elements existing in soil that could be part of the minerals replacing the organic material.

And, aside from the current topic, I have a question for you. If creationism is true, and there is evidence for it, why do creationist sites and books have to resort to deceit, misrepresentation and outright lies to prove their case?

Proving that there is a problem with dinosaur dating, even if it were valid, would not prove ancient Hebrew myths any more than it would prove any other ancient myths.

There is no evidence for ancient Hebrew myth. That is why the promoters of creationism are forced to resort to deceit and lies.

Because that would be a ludicrously inappropriate test to do on those samples.

"Dinosaur bones" are fossils. They're made of ROCK, not organic matter. Carbon dating is only useful with previously living material. Fossilization replaces all that stuff with minerals.

Even if the organic material WERE still present, the age of the fossils (as determined by dozens of other dating methods) means that the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 would be far too small to be measured.

When you use the wrong method on the wrong samples, your results are going to be garbage. That's how these charlatans get the idiotic "results" that you refer to in your question. It's like claiming that the speedometer in your car is 100 mph off, so that speedometers are useless, without mentioning that you took your test speedometer out of the car and battered it with a sledgehammer first.

Those non mainstream scientists are quacks. You can calculate how many half-lives of C14 are in 70 million years and from that how many atoms of C14 would be left. Any C14 in dinosaur bones will either be contamination or as a result of radio active decay of other elements.

UPDATE. Do the sums, then you will see how ridiculous carbon dating fossils millions of years old is. Of course, they can come up with some alternative theory that stands up to independent examination that others can verify but to simply attempt to carbon date dinosaurs and claim they are 1000s years old adds nothing to science.

Because they have functional brain cells. Dinosaur bones are millions of years old and C14 is good for only 45,000 years or so.

why you answer my question when you do not leave a way to remark on your answer?

as for your question:

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html