Is radiocarbon dating reliable
Everyone assumes that dates that follow the word "radiocarbon" are accurate, precise and sure. The basic principle of radiocarbon dating is that plants and animals absorb trace amounts of radioactive carbon-14 from carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere while they are alive but stop doing so when they die.
The carbon-14 in a sample decays at a steady rate after it dies, and thus works like a clock.
Doesn't that give accurate dates of "prehistoric" civilizations?
Carbon dating is the ultimate benchmark of the evolutionary dating world.
That is science based on a shifting foundation of sand!
Yet that is the necessity by which these scientists are driven.
Anything further back and the dates are as much as 800 years off.That doesn't seem like a sound scientific process, does it?And what was it that finally got the scientists to agree on their uncertain calibration curve? The problem with all these theories and conclusions is that they hark back to the scientists' blind belief in the false theory of evolution.Once the "clock" starts, there is no gain or loss in radiocarbon elements used in dating. In coral, the carbon-14 decay rate is not stable; it picks up radioactive isotopes over time.In other words, the clock's hour hand doesn't move consistently. "[P]roblems arising from past variations in the marine reservoir and also possible errors in the counting of laminated sediments mean this part of the calibration curve is less secure than that based on tree-ring records," says Quartenary Dating Methods.