Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[dlamberth]

For instance, a truly global flood would leave a telltale layer of sedimen, which would be of uniform age and have a global distribution. If no such layer can be discovered, then that's strong evidence against such an event having occurred.

Thanks. This is a pretty key point that needs to be highlighted.

 

[dlamberth]

Here's my example again:

What if I told you our family diary says my great-grandfather was an engineer for B & O railroad.
Then, years later, you find me searching for my great-grandfather's name in the B & O personnel files?
Furthermore, what if I don't find his file, because it was removed for some reason the day he retired?

In my example, my great-grandfather was an engineer for B & O railroad, whose file was removed.

The diary is correct.

But in your example, the story is wrong from the git-go.

Or so you believe, like I did.

 

[AV1611VET]

AND presenting that the God of Love is a mass killer.

2 Corinthians 5:11a Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;

Note btw that there’s not merely no positive evidence but also many lines of inquiry that provide disproof of any global flood.

Science is myopic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or so you believe, like I did.

Yet you were wrong from the git-go, and I was right.

Faith requires an object.

And the object of your faith (those who told you you were related to John Adams) led you astray; while the object of my faith (the diary) was correct.

 

[Zaha Torte]

The Word of God, as written and dictated by fallible and unknowing mortal men.

The Word of God was transcribed by Man but dictated by God through His Holy Spirit.

If God reveals truth to a man - how can you claim that he is "unknowing"?

God's actual creation on the other hand shows your claim to not be that at all.

I have yet to see anything that contradicts what the Word of God claims.

Are you relying on "fallible and unknowing moral men" as the basis of your claim?

Miracles explain everything and thus they explain nothing.

All things exist by the miracle of God - of course - that is the explanation.

If you believe that you are entitled to an explanation - why not go to God and His Word and find it?

Hard disagree.

That's a given - but why? What exactly do you disagree with?

Very hard disagree.

Obviously - and not conducive to a conversation. Mind sharing why?

This is really the only bit I'll agree on.

That is very confusing, because you earlier claimed that you "Very hard disagree[d]" with my claim that the Holy Spirit was a sure witness and we can come to know for ourselves.

Yet now you claim to agree that the Holy Spirit is how we come to know about God.

Does the Holy Spirit confirm truth or not?

 

[Zaha Torte]

That doesn't even enter into the same universe as explaining how "the fall" changed the laws of physics.

I never claimed that any Laws - let alone those of Physics - were "changed". Strawman.

I claimed that I did not know how the paradisaical state of the Earth and all things upon it would affect how we would measure those things today.

As an example - how would an unspecified period of Time where no decay existed on the planet affect our efforts to try to date things?

Which one is the distant galaxy in? (And I thought the beginning of our universe was one of those points you guys claimed as matching your text to our reality.)

We can only detect and measure things of the same order as ourselves - those celestial bodies that are in a Fallen State.

The Universe definitely had a beginning - in the sense that it was organized as such - but all the components are Eternal.

I don't think you should assume things about what I believe or try lumping me in with other Christians.

So now the laws (and that would include physics) are unchanging.

Not now - always - and I never claimed otherwise.

How does this match with changing the laws or constants of physics. (You can't even be constant within a single post.)

That was your strawman you are referring to.

Seriously, this is embarrassingly misinformed. If you had ever seen it in the sky you would not call it "floating".

Is this an attempt at another strawman or did you really not get it?

I claimed that to those who do not understand or who are unaware - it would appear to be "floating".

You may take issue with the word I chose - I felt that it was appropriate to describe something that continuously falls toward the Earth without actually hitting it - but that does not really affect the point that I made.

My point was that no Laws of Physics were violated in regard to people getting the International Space Station into a Low Earth Orbit - even if it appears to defy the Laws of Physics by those who do not understand or who are not aware of them.

God always operates according to Law - and we do not know all the Laws - which is why we attribute the term "miracle" to them.

I don't care. THat's just your theology. Got nothing to do with the world I live in.

It would have everything to do with the world you live in if it is true.

Yes. That is the point of mercy.

No - Mercy cannot rob Justice its due. That would be Unlawful.

This makes no sense at all (and neither does you capitalization, only "Earth" should be capitalized inside these sentences).

How does it not make sense?

I capitalize certain words so that you know that they have special meaning.

You seem to get distracted very easily.

Raw, unevidenced assertion.

You can read more about it in the Genesis account.

And so is this.

I see no reason to assume that everything was the same.

Why do you believe that?

 

[common prophets]

Global, mot possible.

You assume the story is based in actual events., where Id say
its possible that some local,flood was “glorified”.

But thatv loops back to what I said, that nothing in the story
is true.

So then, of what use is such a story?

Glorification is done by portraying the event as true. If it is said that we are glorifying, then the glorification itself is canceled. So, when the people said it was a huge flood, that glorified the flood story. And the story is essentially correct. The only thing is that glorifying it as a global flood is incorrect.

 

[common prophets]

As I said though: many people who espouse a global flood story don't care for the original historical Hebrew. They see the English text as it and take it at face value

Okay, Thank you.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I never claimed that any Laws - let alone those of Physics - were "changed". Strawman.

Let's see if that is actually the case...

I claimed that I did not know how the paradisaical state of the Earth and all things upon it would affect how we would measure those things today.

If you change how things are measured, how is that not changing the laws of physics?

As an example - how would an unspecified period of Time where no decay existed on the planet affect our efforts to try to date things?

Which would definitely be changing the laws of physics. "no decay" just isn't how decay works.

We can only detect and measure things of the same order as ourselves - those celestial bodies that are in a Fallen State.

This makes no sense at all.

The Universe definitely had a beginning - in the sense that it was organized as such - but all the components are Eternal.

I don't think you should assume things about what I believe or try lumping me in with other Christians.

No, just other creationists.

Not now - always - and I never claimed otherwise.

That was your strawman you are referring to.

Is this an attempt at another strawman or did you really not get it?

It is hard to get what you are saying. It bears little resemblance to the observed Universe. It suggests you have no idea what the underlying physical processes are, so I make no assumptions that you know them.

I claimed that to those who do not understand or who are unaware - it would appear to be "floating".

You may take issue with the word I chose - I felt that it was appropriate to describe something that continuously falls toward the Earth without actually hitting it - but that does not really affect the point that I made.

I have no idea what your point is.

My point was that no Laws of Physics were violated in regard to people getting the International Space Station into a Low Earth Orbit - even if it appears to defy the Laws of Physics by those who do not understand or who are not aware of them.

Are you aware of the laws of physics? (You seem to think they can change, which is not good awareness.)

God always operates according to Law - and we do not know all the Laws - which is why we attribute the term "miracle" to them.

It would have everything to do with the world you live in if it is true.

And yet that cannot be demonstrated.

No - Mercy cannot rob Justice its due. That would be Unlawful.

Huh? Unlawful?

How does it not make sense?

I capitalize certain words so that you know that they have special meaning.

That's not how capitalization works in English. Only proper nouns (like English) and the first word of a sentence are capitalized. ("law" and "Unlawful" are among the words you recently capitalized that are not proper nouns. (Unlawful isn't a noun at all.)

You seem to get distracted very easily.

No, your writing is choppy and fails to communicate your ideas well.

You can read more about it in the Genesis account.

I see no reason to assume that everything was the same.

Why do you believe that?

You make claims about changing laws of physics with out evidence and I already told you that we have measurements of distant (old) galaxies that demonstrate that the laws of the Universe have not changed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The Word of God was transcribed by Man but dictated by God through His Holy Spirit.

If God reveals truth to a man - how can you claim that he is "unknowing"?

Because God's own creation does not conform to what God supposedly dictated.

I have yet to see anything that contradicts what the Word of God claims.

Are you relying on "fallible and unknowing moral men" as the basis of your claim?

Again, the fact that God's own creation does not conform to what God supposedly dictated heavily shows that the Bible is, while inspired by God, not written or dictated by God.

My favourite example is getting striped goats from placing them in front of striped rods before breeding.

All things exist by the miracle of God - of course - that is the explanation.

If you believe that you are entitled to an explanation - why not go to God and His Word and find it?

Why would I need to 'go to God and His word' to point out that since miracles can explain anything, miracles are worthless as an explanation. If you can explain anything by one single thing, then there is no point in inquiry or even knowledge.e

That's a given - but why? What exactly do you disagree with?

I'm under no obligation to explain why, especially when it's a seriously off-topic comment.

Obviously - and not conducive to a conversation. Mind sharing why?

Because the Bible is not a history book. Simple as. This thread actually talks about it by showing that there is no evidence for a global flood as described in the Bible.

That is very confusing, because you earlier claimed that you "Very hard disagree[d]" with my claim that the Holy Spirit was a sure witness and we can come to know for ourselves.

Yet now you claim to agree that the Holy Spirit is how we come to know about God.

Does the Holy Spirit confirm truth or not?

The Holy Spirit confirms a belief in God, which is true for Christians but not true for others, while studying the earth can or cannot convince a person of coming to Christ. That's up to the person.

I've yet to see any 'truth' from the Bible or people who take the Bible literally about the physical world. Spiritual matters are a whole different thing entirely and also not conducive to the thread topic since it's an off-topic conversation.

 

[Astrid]

The Word of God was transcribed by Man but dictated by God through His Holy Spirit.

If God reveals truth to a man - how can you claim that he is "unknowing"?

I have yet to see anything that contradicts what the Word of God claims.

Are you relying on "fallible and unknowing moral men" as the basis of your claim?

All things exist by the miracle of God - of course - that is the explanation.

If you believe that you are entitled to an explanation - why not go to God and His Word and find it?

That's a given - but why? What exactly do you disagree with?

Obviously - and not conducive to a conversation. Mind sharing why?

That is very confusing, because you earlier claimed that you "Very hard disagree[d]" with my claim that the Holy Spirit was a sure witness and we can come to know for ourselves.

Yet now you claim to agree that the Holy Spirit is how we come to know about God.

Does the Holy Spirit confirm truth or not?

Are failible and unknowing, or, infallible?
You seem awful sure of yourself.

 

[Astrid]

Glorification is done by portraying the event as true. If it is said that we are glorifying, then the glorification itself is canceled. So, when the people said it was a huge flood, that glorified the flood story. And the story is essentially correct. The only thing is that glorifying it as a global flood is incorrect.

Your syntax is a bit confusing, but your main point is “ …essentially correct”.

How is that? What is true, what isn’t, in your opinion? On what basis?

I hold that it is entirely fiction.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From four men , you get four races.
This ripples throughout the bloodlines.
Coincidence? Hardly.

No, not a coincidence at all. A tale attempting to explain the history of mankind with limited knowledge, definitely so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because God's own creation does not conform to what God supposedly dictated.

Such as when the laws of combustion didn't conform to Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego?

That tells you that the Flood was just a local flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are failible and unknowing, or, infallible?
You seem awful sure of yourself.

Psalm 68:11 The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.

 

[Piers Plowman]

Such as when the laws of combustion didn't conform to Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego?

That tells you that the Flood was just a local flood?

'FIZZICS' CAN TAKE A HIKE

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Such as when the laws of combustion didn't conform to Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego?

That tells you that the Flood was just a local flood?

I think you know what my answer is going to be.

 

[CoreyD]

Actually, I sometimes do. I've learned quite a lot from videos others have posted.

I believe everyone has.
Would you like to see an hour and half video on why ice age theories are not conclusively factual?

But also I was hoping that you actually and honestly wanted to learn something about both the dating of the Ice Age Floods as well as the dating of the end of the Ice Age itself.

Are you saying that I do not or cannot read, and haven't done so, and so I need to watch videos you post?
Or, are you saying that I am dishonest, and don't want to know anything about the ice age models?

Than there's the video itself where a person can learn how real geologist work rather than the pseudo-geologist that one finds in AIG.

If it takes one and a half hours to show how "real" geologists work, I don't think the video is worth anyone's time, because in less than half an hour, one can read how geologists work on ice, and will learn not only what is involved, but why, and how such models/theories and their timing are interpreted.

So to give a quick answer. It was ash from Mt. St. Helen of an eruption that happened 16,300 years ago found between layers of sediment that helped with dating. Also the ash from Glacier Peak in Washington which has been dated to 16,000 years ago has also been found between layers. Then we have a location where a stick buried in one of the layers dated to 14,900 years ago. And then we have the surface exposure dating (geochronological) techniques that estimate the length of time an erratic s have been exposed to the rays of the sun. Some erratic's have been dated to as young as 10,000 years ago since being dopped by the floods using this technique. And because there were many floods, other erratics have been dated as old as 20,000 year ago sitting in the sun after deposited by the floods. And other erratics fall inbetween those two dates. This is all explained in detail in the video.

Thank you for that.
I hope you don't mind a few questions.

Mount St. Helens
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Mount St. Helens began growing before the end of the Ice Age; its oldest ash deposits date to at least 40,000 years ago. Yet the visible portion of the volcano - the cone - is much younger. Geologist believe it formed over the last 2,200 years.

Mount St. Helens had nine main eruptions prior to the 1980 eruption. Each “pulse” of eruptions lasted less than 100 years to up to 5,000 years, with long intervals of dormancy between them.

The eruptive history of Mount St. Helens began about 40,000 years ago with dacitic volcanism, which continued intermittently until about 2,500 yr ago. This activity included numerous explosive eruptions over periods of hundreds to thousands of yr, which were separated by apparent dormant intervals ranging in length from a few hundred to about 15,000 yr. The range of rock types erupted by the volcano changed about 2,500 yr ago, and since then, Mount St. Helens repeatedly has produced lava flows of andesite, and on at least two occasions, basalt. Other eruptions during the last 2,500 yr produced dacite and andesite pyroclastic flows and lahars, and dacite, andesite, and basalt airfall tephra. Lithologic successions of the last 2,500 yr include two sequences of andesite-dacite-basalt during the Castle Creek period, and dacite-andesite-dacite during both the Kalama and Goat Rocks periods. Major dormant intervals of the last 2,500 yr range in length from about 2 to 7 centuries.

Since it is not possible to know at what intervals in time Mt St. Helens erupted, or lay dormant...
Please read...

The eruptive history of Mount St. Helens is subdivided here into nine named eruptive "periods," which are clusters of eruptions distinguished by close association in time, by similarity of rock types, or both. The term "eruptive period" is used in an informal and largely arbitrary sense to divide the volcano's history into convenient units for the purpose of discussion. The periods are as much as several thousand years in duration, and include what may have been a single group of eruptions as well as extended episodes of volcanism, during which there were tens or possibly hundreds of eruptions. Eruptive periods are separated by apparently dormant intervals, which are inferred chiefly from buried soils and absence of eruptive deposits. However, some dormant intervals may span times of minor activity that did not produce deposits which can now be recognized. Fine-grained, air-laid volcanic detritus was deposited during some dormant intervals, but these deposits are not known to have originated directly from eruptions; they might be material reworked from the flanks of the volcano.​

The pre-1980 eruptive history of Mount St. Helens is strongly episodic. Volcanologists have recognized and named four episodes of volcanic activity, called "stages"-- Ape Canyon [one from 300 to 250 thousand years ago (ka) and a second from 125 to 35 ka], Cougar [23 to 17 ka23 to 17 ka], Swift Creek [13 to 11 ka], and Spirit Lake [3.9 ka to present]--separated by dormant intervals. The youngest stage, Spirit Lake, is further subdivided into six eruptive periods. Because the preservation of deposits and other geologic evidence is best for the youngest stages, the farther scientists look back in time the less detail they can infer for the history of volcanism at Mount St. Helens.​

How was it determined that layers of sediment was 16,300 years old, rather than 10,000 years old, or less?
Says here...
...systematic studies of the volcanic deposits, laboratory investigations of rock and ash samples, and radiocarbon (carbon-l4) dating of plant remains buried in or beneath the ash layers and other volcanic products enabled them to reconstruct a remarkably complete record of the prehistoric eruptive behavior of Mount St. Helens.

So, we are back to something we don't want to ignore.

• 
  Radiocarbon dating is a key tool archaeologists use to determine the age of plants and objects made with organic material. But new research shows that commonly accepted radiocarbon dating standards can miss the mark -- calling into question historical timelines.

• 
  One of the most important dating tools used in archaeology may sometimes give misleading data, new study shows - and it could change whole historical timelines as a result.
  
  The discrepancy is due to significant fluctuations in the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and it could force scientists to rethink how they use ancient organic remains to measure the passing of time.
  
  A comparison of radiocarbon ages across the Northern Hemisphere suggests we might have been a little too hasty in assuming how the isotope - also known as radiocarbon - diffuses, potentially shaking up controversial conversations on the timing of events in history.

• 
  Global Warming is Affecting the Accuracy of Radiocarbon Dating

• 
  Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells
  Evidence is presented to show that modern mollusk shells from rivers can have anomalous radiocarbon ages, owing mainly to incorporation of inactive (carbon-14-deficient) carbon from humus, probably through the food web, as well as by the pathway of carbon dioxide from humus decay. The resultant effect, in addition to the variable contributions of atmospheric carbon dioxide, fermentative carbon dioxide from bottom muds, and, locally, of carbonate carbon from dissolving limestones, makes the initial carbon-14 activity of ancient fresh-water shell indeterminate, but within limits. Consequent errors of shell radiocarbon dates may be as large as several thousand years for river shells.

• Ash from Glacier Peak in Washington which has been dated to 16,000 years.
• A stick buried in one of the layers dated to 14,900 years.
• Some erratic's have been dated to as young as 10,000 years ago.
• Other erratic have been dated as old as 20,000 year ago.

Why all these different dates? How are these related to 10,000 years ago, and why is dating of ash and a stick significant, considering what we know about dating methods used?

 

[Hans Blaster]

So, we are back to something we don't want to ignore.

• 
  Radiocarbon dating is a key tool archaeologists use to determine the age of plants and objects made with organic material. But new research shows that commonly accepted radiocarbon dating standards can miss the mark -- calling into question historical timelines.

This article refers to calibration with historical timelines, it is not about things that occurred 5000 or 10000 years before anything was written down.

One of the most important dating tools used in archaeology may sometimes give misleading data, new study shows - and it could change whole historical timelines as a result.

The discrepancy is due to significant fluctuations in the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and it could force scientists to rethink how they use ancient organic remains to measure the passing of time.

This is the same as the one before. Here's one juicy quote "By measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the annual growth rings of trees grown in southern Jordan, researchers have found some dating calculations on events in the Middle East – or, more accurately, the Levant – could be out by nearly 20 years."

They're worried they can't date things to 20 year accuracy, no one claims to know when a particular boulder was deposited by a glacial flood by that level of precision. (Again it is thousands of years earlier than the period of "low accuracy" being questioned here.)

A comparison of radiocarbon ages across the Northern Hemisphere suggests we might have been a little too hasty in assuming how the isotope - also known as radiocarbon - diffuses, potentially shaking up controversial conversations on the timing of events in history.

• 
  Global Warming is Affecting the Accuracy of Radiocarbon Dating

Global warming *might* mess with our ability to date things from the industrial age, confusing them with 2000 year old things. This has no impact on ancient things at all.

• 
  Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells
  Evidence is presented to show that modern mollusk shells from rivers can have anomalous radiocarbon ages, owing mainly to incorporation of inactive (carbon-14-deficient) carbon from humus, probably through the food web, as well as by the pathway of carbon dioxide from humus decay. The resultant effect, in addition to the variable contributions of atmospheric carbon dioxide, fermentative carbon dioxide from bottom muds, and, locally, of carbonate carbon from dissolving limestones, makes the initial carbon-14 activity of ancient fresh-water shell indeterminate, but within limits. Consequent errors of shell radiocarbon dates may be as large as several thousand years for river shells.

Where are you seeing any claims of dating flood deposits in the PNW based on molluscs?

Most of these are irrelevant to the dating of the ice age floods and the only one that is even close (molluscs) is a WELL KNOWN ISSUE. No competent geologist is going to take a raw date from a deposit of mollusc shells and use it to date something directly. (Perhaps, since it give overly old ages, it could be used to define an upper limit if no other material was available to date.)

As for your general "complaining" about the broad nature of the dates, these are not a single event but many occurring over a couple thousand years. Different individual floods inundated different parts of the region, etc. A variety of dates should be present even if every flood deposit could be dated to 100 year accuracy.

 

[CoreyD]

This article refers to calibration with historical timelines, it is not about things that occurred 5000 or 10000 years before anything was written down.


This is the same as the one before. Here's one juicy quote "By measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the annual growth rings of trees grown in southern Jordan, researchers have found some dating calculations on events in the Middle East – or, more accurately, the Levant – could be out by nearly 20 years."

They're worried they can't date things to 20 year accuracy, no one claims to know when a particular boulder was deposited by a glacial flood by that level of precision. (Again it is thousands of years earlier than the period of "low accuracy" being questioned here.)



Global warming *might* mess with our ability to date things from the industrial age, confusing them with 2000 year old things. This has no impact on ancient things at all.

Where are you seeing any claims of dating flood deposits in the PNW based on molluscs?

Most of these are irrelevant to the dating of the ice age floods and the only one that is even close (molluscs) is a WELL KNOWN ISSUE. No competent geologist is going to take a raw date from a deposit of mollusc shells and use it to date something directly. (Perhaps, since it give overly old ages, it could be used to define an upper limit if no other material was available to date.)

As for your general "complaining" about the broad nature of the dates, these are not a single event but many occurring over a couple thousand years. Different individual floods inundated different parts of the region, etc. A variety of dates should be present even if every flood deposit could be dated to 100 year accuracy.

We talking about the same thing - Radiocarbon Dating?

Radiocarbon dating measures the decay of carbon-14 in organic matter. But the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere fluctuates through time; it’s not a constant baseline. So researchers create radiocarbon calibration curves that map the carbon-14 values to dates.

Problems With Radiocarbon Dating

Spoiler

The old method of determining 14C/12C ratios required counting the number of radioactive beta decay emissions from a quite large sample over an extended period. During the last 60 years, a new method of determining these ratios has been developed. It uses accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) to determine the amounts of 14C, 13C and 12C in a small sample which is vaporised in the test. The ions produced are forced into a magnetic field where the differing mass of the carbon isotopes causes a different deflection, allowing the quantity of each isotope to be measured. This method is rapid and more accurate than the older counting technique. The sensitivity of the mass spec method should allow the dating of objects up to 95,000 years old. As noted above, in practice this is not achieved.

A test by the British Science and Engineering Research Council has shown that the accuracy of the AMS method is overrated. They found large variations in the radiocarbon ‘dates’ of objects of known age, which were sent to 38 radiocarbon ‘dating’ laboratories around the world. Thirty-one of the labs gave results that the British group called unsatisfactory. Their results were ‘two to three times less accurate than implied by the range of error they stated.’ They thought the variations might have been caused by poor laboratory standards allowing contamination of the samples.

Some scientists believe the problem runs far deeper than this, as the following quote shows:

In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as “proof” for their beliefs...

Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered foundation, and now lurches onward with feigned consistency. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates.

...[Some authors have said] they were “not aware of a single significant disagreement” in any sample that had been dated at different labs. Such enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible though it may seem, that “no gross discrepancies are apparent”. Surely 15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a gross discrepancy! And how could the excessive disagreement between the labs be called insignificant, when it has been the basis for the reappraisal of the standard error associated with each and every date in existence?

Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the numbers do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better—both to the layman and professional not versed in statistics—than complex stratigraphic or cultural correlations, and are more easily retained in one’s memory. “Absolute” dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely useful in bolstering weak arguments...

No matter how “useful” it is though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.

Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error. Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19 (3), 1981, pp. 9-29

Though there have been improvements in the technology since then, Lee’s general criticism remains valid. There is a trend towards older objects having less 14C in them than younger objects, but clearly there are serious problems in converting the 14C/12C ratios of ‘old’ items into precise dates.

However, there are other factors which make the dating problems even worse. I believe that the 14C/12C ratios in the past were drastically altered by two powerful factors. These factors are changes in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field and changes in the total amount of normal carbon available to organisms. Changes which cause lower initial quantities of 14C and higher levels of 12C mean that radiocarbon date calculations which assume constant conditions in the past give falsely “old” dates.

Accelerator mass spectrometry has made radiocarbon dating the most precise method to determine the death of living organisms that occurred within the last 50,000 years. However, the method is not without limitations

How Fish Corrupt Carbon-14 Dating
Danish Stone Age settlements may turn out to be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years younger than we thought.

A physicist from Aarhus University has together with archaeologists at the Gottorp Castle Museum in Northern Germany made a startling discovery: if ancient people prepared their fish in clay vessels, it’s impossible to date this accurately.

It turns out that the widely-used Carbon-14 dating method may be up to 2,000 years off the mark.

”We had not expected to see an effect of 2,000 years. The discovery has some fairly frightening implications because it’s crucial to archaeology to have steady fixation points in the dating work. There’s probably no need to rewrite the history books, but it’s likely that they contain some incorrectly dated excavation sites, Associate Professor Felix Riede told Aarhus University’s newsletter Rømer.

Carbon dating, the archaeological workhorse, is getting a major reboot
A long-anticipated recalibration of radiocarbon dating could shift the age of some prehistoric samples hundreds of years

Lots of things apparently throw Carbon 14 readings off marks.