[editor-surveyor]

"I can’t speak for the first poster but I believe he/she may be thinking of carbon testing which is very innaccurate on samples of recent age but it’s accuracy increases dramatically when applied to samples of great antiquity."

Wow, what a mind-numbingly convenient concept!

Never mind the fact that such a situation proves the fact that dating is based in completely circular reasoning.

[Coyoteman]

"I can’t speak for the first poster but I believe he/she may be thinking of carbon testing which is very innaccurate on samples of recent age but it’s accuracy increases dramatically when applied to samples of great antiquity."

Wow, what a mind-numbingly convenient concept!

Never mind the fact that such a situation proves the fact that dating is based in completely circular reasoning.

And you have some evidence that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate?

Perhaps you could share it with us. Please include the details which would lead us to believe your claim, as opposed to mainstream science.

[XRdsRev]

Anyone who knows how this testing works realizes that it is not accurate on specimens of recent date. It is based upon predictable and consistent isotope half-life which requires a long period of time to decay enough to be measured. It is not that the tests are not useful or that they are the work of the “devil”, it just means that the testing criteria require specimens to be of at least a certain age before the tests can measure anything.