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.
LOL! So one must remain within the assumptions of science in order to prove against those very assumptions? Again. Hubris.
You may want to study some basics in multivariate math, say the first several Chapters of Morse and Feshbach to understand my expressions of exponential functionals. You might also complement your expressions with a Little, Brown Handbook.
Funny you should ask.
Two objects attributed to near ancient history, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls have been well studied by multiple parties. Many atheistic scholars have tested and placed the age to the Shroud circa 1260-1390AD, while other atheists have tested the Dead Sea Scrolls / pottery and aged their materials to within 100 years of Christ.
Both are highly scrutinized as being possibly non-authentic by believers, but they admit a historical custodial trail of the Shroud dating back to 1353, but that custody had been reported to have come from the time of Incarnation. This is further implied by Sinai Icon and the Image of Edessa circa 525AD, both appear similar to the image on the Shroud.
Meanwhile, after custodial histories and their appearance strongly reinforce obvious assertions, later scientific appeals by atheists now claim their original dating techniques were errant.
This leads us to consider all the other less scrutinized cases of radiocarbon dating. If two specimens with widely publicized custodial histories, might be independently traceable from radiocarbon dating to about 2000 years in age, but radiocarbon dating ranges to dates 2/3 to 1/10 off the custodial ages, one is lead to accept radiocarbon dating has some relative merit, but absolute accuracy in its dating is dubious at best.
Perhaps if the scientific community would fund research from a perspective which recognizes Scriptural guidance, instead of trying to always disprove Creation, it would discover far more valuable lessons to benefit all mankind.