[Havoc]

Uh sorry, Carbon dating initially relied on levels being constant over time - an assumption that bit them in the butt. When it bit, they scrambled to sell another guess - that of a steadly rising or decreasing amount - niether of which could be proven; nonetheless, the newer more technical guess at it was sold as science and the tool continued to be used. Some of us are aware of that which we speak.

Furthermore, science cannot account for saturation or contamination as they cannot produce a direct witness to the levels of either. Nor can they be sure of either the scope or extent of saturation/contamination at any given point in time because they don't know the atmospheric levels from one year to another. This is a guess based on bad assumptions that do not hold up to scrutiny any more than carbon dating does.

The problem with playing games with theoreticals is that they largely tend to turn around and bite you. All the other dating schemes have been calibrated against Radio carbon that itself is flawed - including strata dating.
Strata dating is flawed all by itself for the most obvious reasons and these have been discussed endlessly to deaf ears who merely continue in their use and expect everyone to buy them. Some of us actually want to hold you guys to account - and that just really ticks ya off. Get used to it. Cause it's only gonna get worse.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Uh sorry, Carbon dating initially relied on levels being constant over time - an assumption that bit them in the butt. When it bit, they scrambled to sell another guess - that of a steadly rising or decreasing amount -...

No. You should check the relevant literature to see what is actually being claimed. Misstating what the scientists are saying does litte to enhance your credibility.