[I am always pleasantly amazed how time after time modern scientific methods including carbon dating, used on archaeological digs verify the accounts of the Bible and the dates and locations of civilizations and events mentioned in the Bible.]
ah but i have no problems with the accuracy (or at least semi accuracy) of the dating method up until about 4000 or so years ago- which I might point out are generally corroberated by accompanying evidences such as texts, known dates backed up by records etc. - beyond that though things get sketchy, and I have no problems not being able to pinpoint certain events beyond these times- As I mentioned, everythign beyond that is pretty much speculation and opinion. We know certain people and civilizations lived according to biblical recordings, and we can gustimate beyond the 4000 year limitations of carbon dating, but really, there's plenty of archeological and dating records to show the more recent events were factual, so there's really no need to doubt the earlier records that can't be dated with pinpoint accuracy of the bible either- no worries. There's enough archeological evidences to guestimate timelines fairly accurate for earlier recorded events and civilizations
Your understanding of radiocarbon dating is flawed by creationist propaganda.
There is no "4000 year limitation" -- that is a product religious apologists who feel they need to deny the findings of science in order to safeguard their religious beliefs.
The tree-ring calibration extends past 12,000 years in the western US and other calibration methods go much farther back in Europe. Your denial of these is no more than whistling past a graveyard.
Even worse, you have shown in various threads that you have no actual scientific knowledge or understanding of radiocarbon dating. You have never shown that you know the science, nor have you ever indicated that you have done any radiocarbon dating.
For you to pontificate on the science, including the limitations and accuracies, of the radiocarbon dating method is thus pointless. You have no knowledge of the subject to share with us.
You might as well regale us with your views on cosmology and string theory. Those tales will all have about the same usefulness, and the same scientific accuracy -- i.e., none.
Where do you keep getting that figure? The process is accurate up to 50-60,000 years.
Are you saying you accept the readings that show things to be 3500 years old or 3800 years old but all of a sudden if something is shown to be 4100 years old the science behind the process suddenly becomes inaccurate? That's not how the laws of physics work.