[aruanan]

What's wrong with carbon dating ?

It assumes that production and decay of C14 are in equilibrium. They are not. The result is that the older an object actually is, its C-14 date will make it appear to be much older. Of course, that's assuming the rate of production has remained constant. The discrepancy between the rates of production and decay were at first just assumed to have been experimental error because it was previously assumed that they would have to have already been in equilibrium. As I recall, the difference was something between 10 and 20%, though it's been a while since I read the paper.

[Jolly Rodgers]

It assumes that production and decay of C14 are in equilibrium. They are not. The result is that the older an object actually is, its C-14 date will make it appear to be much older. Of course, that's assuming the rate of production has remained constant. The discrepancy between the rates of production and decay were at first just assumed to have been experimental error because it was previously assumed that they would have to have already been in equilibrium. As I recall, the difference was something between 10 and 20%, though it's been a while since I read the paper.

The snippets I posted indicated that the calibrations from independent sources show that the error was in the opposite direction. Items dated prior to calibration for the changes in C-14 rates of absorption are much too young.