Carbon dating methods accurate
The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them: Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution.
Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils.
Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide.
Radiocarbon dating is one of the best known archaeological dating techniques available to scientists, and the many people in the general public have at least heard of it.
In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected.
New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’.
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.
Libby, the discoverer of the C14 dating method, was very disappointed with this problem.
Paleontologists still commonly use biostratigraphy to date fossils, often in combination with paleomagnetism and tephrochronology.
But the "Curve of the Knowns" was, as far as I know, the first convincing demonstration that the method was fundamentally sound.
When it comes to determining the age of stuff scientists dig out of the ground, whether fossil or artifact, “there are good dates and bad dates and ugly dates,” says paleoanthropologist John Shea of Stony Brook University.
These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views.
Current understanding of the history of life is probably close to the truth because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data.
Methods fall into one of two categories: relative or absolute.