Can carbon dating wrong
Unless the investigator was there to observe and measure all variables, it can never be known for certain that the final observed and measured ratios of a sample under investigation reflect a simple linear relationship going back into deep time.Thanks for your question Bill; it is very involved and has multiple lines of reasoning within it.C, dendrochronology, and uranium-thorium (U-Th) dating techniques are indeed trustworthy, as are the experts and labs that perform these tests.
Obviously I am questioning the conclusions of that study.
For example, one study published by “a group of researchers from the U. Forest Service and the University of Minnesota” concludes fallen conifers will take 57 to 124 years to completely disintegrate, This, of course, depends on the exact environmental conditions, but fallen trees generally do not last for centuries, let alone millennia.
Tree ring dating also assumes a single annual growth ring, but this assumption has been demonstrated to be false, in that BCPs have been shown to develop multiple annual rings when under harsher, more arid conditions.
He doubts that two different methods would produce the ‘same curve’ on a sample for the following reasons: C in the atmosphere is increasing over time.
Not only are we not in equilibrium since Creation, but the magnetic field of the earth is continually declining.