Effective range carbon dating
One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life world wide (the flood of Noah)!
This supposedly allows one to date an object by the proportion of 14-C to 12-C. Tests of Hawaiian lava flows known to be less than 200 years old have been dated up to 3 billion years old! That is, the scientists themselves do not know the effective range for 14-C.(They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating.The scientists who were trying to build the chronology found the tree rings so ambiguous that they could not decide which rings matched which (using the bristlecone pine).The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is (as 'corrected' by dendrochronology).The methodology is quite accurate, but dendrochronology supposedly shows that the C14 dates go off because of changes in the equilibrium over time, and that the older the dates the larger the error.In fact, 14C is forming FASTER than the observed decay rate.
This skews the 'real' answer to a much younger age.
If something carbon dates at 7,000 years we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood).
Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30,000 dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years.
And this big sequence is then used to 'correct' C14 dates. (3.) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is still subject to question.
(4.) Traditional 14C testing assumes equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of decay.
by Helen Fryman Question: What about radiocarbon dating? Response: I asked several people who know about this field. (1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago.