Carbon dating go datingalternative com
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?
This limit is currently accepted by nearly all radiocarbon dating practitioners.
It follows that the older a date is, even within this 'limit', the greater are the doubts about the date's accuracy.
What effect would the declining strength of the earth's magnetic field and a catastrophic worldwide flood have on radiocarbon dates?...[Some authors have said] they were "not aware of a single significant disagreement" on 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".The ions produced are forced into a magnetic field where the different mass of the carbon isotopes causes a different deflection, allowing the quantity of each isotope to be measured.This method is claimed to be more accurate than the older and slower method of counting the number of radioactive decay emissions from a quite large sample.
Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered foundation, and now lurches onward with feigned consistency.