by Helen Fryman Question: What about radiocarbon dating? Response: I asked several people who know about this field. (1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago.This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age.

After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.

Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I wont go into here.

Other radiometric dating methods such as potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium are used for such purposes by those who believe that the earth is billions of years old.

Radiocarbon is not suitable for this purpose because it is only applicable: a) on a time scale of thousands of years and b) to remains of once-living organisms (with minor exceptions, from which rocks are excluded).

Scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory of Columbia University at Palisades, N.

Y., reported today in the British journal Nature that some estimates of age based on carbon analyses were wrong by as much as 3,500 years.Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration.For object over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard.The field of radiocarbon dating has become a technical one far removed from the naive simplicity which characterized its initial introduction by Libby in the late 1940's.It is, therefore, not surprising that many misconceptions about what radiocarbon can or cannot do and what it has or has not shown are prevalent among creationists and evolutionists - lay people as well as scientists not directly involved in this field.Example: wood found in a grave of known age by historically reliable documents is the standard for that time for the C14 content.