"You're quite mistaken. When performed properly, carbon dating is very accurate. The method has been calibrated and verified countless times, in dozens of independent ways.
Like any procedure, however, it's possible to f*** it up if you don't do it right."
forgive me for playing the devil's advocate here... how can you prove to me that the "f*** it up" aspect is the product of a misstep? how do you know they didnt do it over and over again, precisely the way they should? is it not POSSIBLE that the ones you havent heard about (that provide these claims) are in fact, valid as well?
and yes, i concede, i dont have the documentation to back it up, this is why i dont have names. i appologize for that aspect, but it was told to me some 9 or 10 years ago, i have better study habits now. it is possible what i was told was a lie, or mis-telling, but im relying on the idea that so is C-dating.
For one thing, we have some knowledge of nuclear science. That provides a theoretical basis, a predictive model. Then we have something called "calibration," where we see if the model jives with how things work in the real world. Carbon 14 dating has been calibrated against items which can be tree-ring dated, ice-core dated, and historically dated.
Then, after we have a tool based upon the preceding, we have the accumulated experience of using it for some decades, which gives us a data base of real problems and real problem fixes. That gives us some confidence that when one person consistently gets results that are far off-base, that person is doing something very wrong.