For instance, creationist Walt Brown has pointed out inconsistencies in some radiocarbon dates of mammoths -- one part was dated to 40,000 years, another to 26,000 years (and wood surrounding it to 10,000 years), and yet another to between 15,000 and 21,000 years before the present epoch [Brown2001].However, in the scientific results mentioned by Brown, the dates come from different mammoth specimens.

In 2009, several leading researchers in the field established a detailed calibration of radiocarbon dating, based on a careful analysis of pristine corals, ranging back to approximately 50,000 years before the present epoch [Reimer2009].

Here is a graph showing radiocarbon dates on the vertical axis and the calibrated age on the horizontal axis (shown here with permission from Johannes van der Plicht, one of the authors of the 2009 study).

What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs. Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years.

So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says).

Comparing these counts with a series of 651 radiocarbon-dated samples spanning this record, they obtained a calibration curve that is very close to the 2009 calibration shown above [Callaway2012]. It should be emphasized that the actual calibrated dates are about 10%-20% older than the raw uncorrected radiocarbon dates that were once used.

Compare, for example, the uncorrected line (blue dotted line) with the calibration curve (red curve).For instance, even in the 1950s, when Willard Libby first developed the process, it was recognized that the scheme assumes that the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant.But researchers have known at least since 1969 that the carbon-14 level has not been constant, so that the radiocarbon clock needs to be "calibrated." As a result, various schemes are used to correct and calibrate radiocarbon dates, including: In each case, radiocarbon dates, determined by well-established procedures and calculations, are compared directly with dates determined by the above methods, thus permitting the radiocarbon dates to be accurately calibrated with distinct and independent dating techniques.Also, at least one of these dates comes from a hide that had been soaked in glycerin, rendering the date invalid.These and numerous other claimed anomalies in radiocarbon dating are explained in detail in Mark Isaak's book [Isaak2007, pg. In short, while like any other method of scientific investigation, radiocarbon dating is subject to anomalies and misuse, when used correctly in accordance with well-established procedures and calibration schemes, the method is a very reliable means of dating relatively "recent" artifacts.Since it is chemically indistinguishable from the stable isotopes of carbon (carbon-12 and carbon-13), radiocarbon is taken by plants during photosynthesis and then ingested by animals regularly throughout their lifetimes.