He gives the example of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the linen wrappings of which were dated to between 150 B. I could find no evidence of it, until I considered the source of the claim.
The radiocarbon method is often used as a starting point for understanding radiometric dating techniques, especially in classes unrelated to geology, because: 1) most are familiar with Carbon, as opposed to elements like Osmium, Neodymium, Rubidium, Thorium, etc.; 2) the technique is relatively easy to understand (try explaining a U-Pb concordia over dinner, if you don't believe me); and 3) the method is used in historical studies, such as the dating of artifacts or trees, which can be confirmed by more 'tangible' witnesses like tree ring counts (Sakurai et al., 2004).Worse still, sometimes they want to know how evolutionists use Carbon-14 to date dinosaur fossils!Radiometric Dating Technologies are presented to the public by evolutionists as utterly reliable clocks for dating earth rocks or biological materials.He claimed that it was capable of dating animal, plant and human remains of fairly recent origin. As they say on Star Trek, we are all carbon based units.Laboratory research has shown that the radioactive decay of Carbon-14 occurs in a half-life of 5,73040 years through beta decay that causes the Carbon-14 to revert back to Nitrogen-14.For some reason, which I have not yet figured out, at least one person per week has been asking me about the Carbon-14 Radiometric Dating Technique.They want to know if it is accurate or if it works at all.Briefly, normal carbon is carbon-12 (C atoms are incorporated, along with normal carbon atoms, into the cellulose structure of plants and trees, and they also enter into the tissues of animals.When a plant or animal dies, no more carbon is added.The third point is most relevant to our discussion, since it results in 'both sides' affirming the accuracy of radiocarbon dating for any 'recent' samples (as opposed to nearly any other method, which must be discounted in all cases by anyone that believes in a young Earth).Thus even from a 'young-Earth' standpoint, all radiocarbon dates (assuming that care is taken to eliminate contamination) are taken to be meaningful indicators of a given sample's age. Anyone familiar with typical studies employing the radiocarbon method knows that model ages obtained often exceed 10,000 years (e.g. So doesn't the method already affirm that the Earth (or at least it's now deceased inhabitants) must be at least this old?