shhhh- don’t mention that radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about.... 10,000 or so years- beyond that, it’s all nothign but speculation and assumptions- but alas, we creationists ‘don’t understand’. We ‘don’t understand’ for instance that ALL the dating methods have SERIOUS problems associated with htem such as the following major dating methods:
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
Up to 10000 years tops
Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.
Very little info on this method
Luminescence Dating Methods
Amino Acid Racemization
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties
Highly unreliable- you’d need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating
Some of those articles make good arguments although not yet conclusive. They may very well re-consider the pre-historic ages.
The first article is bunk though. Radiometric dating was discovered by Henri Becquerel and Marie Curie.
I don’t know enough about physics to address this effectively but it may very well be that radiometric dating and other methods are too flawed.
Anyone here a physicist or a chemist?