"The lower leg lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY." (Natural History 1949) 'Living mollusk shell were carbon dated as being 2,300 years old.' (Science 1963) 'A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago' (Antarctic Journal 1971) "One part of Dima (a baby frozen mammoth) was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the 'wood immediately around the carcass' was 9-10,000." (Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 1975) 'Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.' (Science 1984) "The two Colorado Creek, AK mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 ±670 and 16,150 ±230 years respectively." (Quaternary Research 1992) "One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000." (Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 1975) And one of my favorite extracts."No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. Furthermore, the ratio is known to fluctuate significantly over relatively short periods of time (e.g. Unfortunately the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 has yet to reach a state of equilibrium in our atmosphere; there is more carbon-14 in the air today than there was thousands of years ago.It would help if you actually READ and tried to understand science, instead of just latching onto whatever Creationist sound byte you can to try to discredit it.How is it then that when you take one object, let say #0001, and date it using all of the 6 above stated methods of dating, that you will get 6 different dates? If I use six different rulers, (inch, mm, cubit, span etc.), I will get one measurement when converting it all to one system.
I just find it odd that every couple of weeks it seems like we find something that we never thought could have existed in that "time frame".
There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.
This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read." (Anthropological Journal of Canada 1981) (working of notes I made, will go back to read entire articles and papers) carbon dating is not the only dating method used, it's just the most popular/easy to understand i think there are over a dozen dating methods, here straight from good old wikipedia Radiocarbon dating - for dating organic materials Dendrochronology - for dating trees, and objects made from wood, but also very important for calibrating radiocarbon dates Thermoluminescence dating - for dating inorganic material including ceramics Optically stimulated luminescence or optical dating for archaeological applications Potassium–argon dating - for dating fossilized hominid remains there are many more of course.
Unfortunately, we aren't able to reliably date artifacts beyond several thousand years.
Scientists have tried to extend confidence in the carbon dating method further back in time by calibrating the method using tree ring dating.