Carbon dating not reliable
So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old.If something carbon dates at 7,000 years we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood).For object over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard.Libby, the discoverer of the C14 dating method, was very disappointed with this problem.(2.) I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ.The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is (as 'corrected' by dendrochronology).(4.) Traditional 14C testing assumes equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of decay.In fact, 14C is forming FASTER than the observed decay rate.
One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life world wide (the flood of Noah)!
Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I wont go into here.
We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation.
She says this is ok so long as you take into account the correction factors from dendrochronology.
(They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating."There has been much debate for several decades among scholars arguing for different chronologies sometimes only decades to a century apart -- each with major historical implications. may all be inaccurate since they are using the wrong radiocarbon information," Manning said.