Human history doesn’t go back further than about 6000 years, but our metrics to gauge the age of some materials exponentially rank into earlier times.
One must discern which object has more veracity, radiocarbon dating techniques or the Word of God.
About as much veracity as I can attribute to radiocarbon dating, is that it is a metric with many assumptions, when consistently applied to various materials, may provide a relative dating technique in very large numbers.
When I compare various objects from ancient history tested by those metrics and observe their measurements vary by as much as around 2/3 their elapsed age, I have good justification to doubt veracity of the dating technique.
More in depth study in quantum mechanics and their mathematical basis, indicates older specimens might have ages calculated based upon exponentials of exponentials of other exponentials, allowing for very large absolute number errors. Something that might be thousands of years old might be calculated as billions of years old, without further statement of the assumptions made in the calculations.
Without a known gauge with independently verifiable age, the calculation techniques may have some relative value, but lack veritable acceptance as an absolute dating technique.
In the example provided, no mention is even made of hard water effects on radiocarbon dating, which could easily vary the calculated age by about a factor of 2-4.
Even less veritable is the presumptions at the end of the article attributing a motive for the person whose skull was found in a cave, for having entered the cave. Authors prone to such presumptive hypotheses, hardly manifest a discipline to respect indubitable veracity.
Funny thing, is that they might be able to have contributed significant findings in their search, had they simply remained dedicated to finding the truth, instead of reading their worldview into their observations.
Really? Do you have scientific references for that assertion, or did you pick up that "fact" at a creationist website? I know that creationist con men (like Ken Ham) love to expound on the supposed inaccuracy of radiometric dating, taking advantage of an audience that has no clue how such methods actually work.
More in depth study in quantum mechanics and their mathematical basis, indicates older specimens might have ages calculated based upon exponentials of exponentials of other exponentials, allowing for very large absolute number errors.
What on earth is that supposed to even mean? I notice that you are using a lot of words without much apparent understanding of what they really mean. Do you know what logarithms and exponents are, or what a logarithmic function is? Do you know how to calculate them? Do you know what quantum mechanics is? Do you have any idea how radiometric sample dating even works?
I've often suspected that the website "Fundies say the darndest things" mostly portrays people saying profoundly ignorant things while pretending to be Christians in order to make Christians look like uneducated hicks. Sometimes, however, I'm not so sure.