In other words, those hoping that uncertainties in radiocarbon dating, say in the assumption of constancy of atmospheric carbon levels, will mean that specimens are really much younger than the measured dates, are in for a big disappointment -- it is now clear that specimens are actually somewhat older than the raw, uncalibrated reckonings.
Creationist criticisms of radiocarbon dating As mentioned above, young-earth creationist writers have cited various anomalies and potential difficulties with radiocarbon unreliable carbon dating, and have used these examples to justify their conclusion that the entire scheme is flawed and unreliable. For instance, creationist Walt Brown has pointed out inconsistencies in some radiocarbon dates of mammoths -- one part was dated to 40, years, another to 26, years and wood surrounding it to 10, yearsand yet another to between 15, and 21, years before the present epoch [ Brown ].
These and numerous other claimed anomalies in radiocarbon dating are explained in detail in Mark Isaak's book [ Isaakpg. Conclusion In short, while like any other method of scientific investigation, radiocarbon dating is subject to anomalies and misuse, when used correctly in accordance with well-established procedures and calibration schemes, the method is a very reliable means of dating relatively "recent" artifacts.
In any event, it must be emphasized once again that radiocarbon dating has no relevance one way or the other for the overall question of whether the Earth is many millions of years old, since the scheme can only be used to reliably date specimens less than approximately 50, years unreliable carbon dating.
Additional background is available in a well-written Wikipedia article on the topic [ Radiocarbon ], and in Richard Wiens' article [ Wiens ].
One of the most essential tools for determining an ancient object's age, carbon dating, might not be as accurate as we once thought.