Carbon dating is wrong
Question: "Is carbon dating a reliable method for determining the age of things?" Answer: Carbon dating, or radiocarbon dating, like any other laboratory testing technique, can be extremely reliable, so long as all of the variables involved are controlled and understood. But what's interesting is that a small fraction of carbon-14 forms, and then this carbon-14 can then also combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide.And carbon-14 is constantly doing this decay thing. So over the course of 5,730 years, roughly half of them will have decayed. Well, if you know that all living things have a certain proportion of carbon-14 in their tissue, as kind of part of what makes them up, and then if you were to find some bone-- let's just say find some bone right here that you dig it up on some type of archaeology dig.Charcoal and wood are two of the most widely used materials for accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating.AMS labs prefer to carbon date charcoal and wood because these materials do not need complex pretreatment.Several factors affect radiocarbon test results, not all of which are easy to control objectively.
Nor can it tell if a much older spearhead was attached to a brand-new shaft.
But what's interesting is as soon as you die and you're not ingesting anymore plants, or breathing from the atmosphere if you are a plant, or fixing from the atmosphere. Once a plant dies, it's no longer taking in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and turning it into new tissue. And this carbon-14 does this decay at a specific rate. And you say, hey, that bone has one half the carbon-14 of all the living things that you see right now.
And then you can use that rate to actually determine how long ago that thing must've died. It would be a pretty reasonable estimate to say, well, that thing must be 5,730 years old.
The time-width affects the way radiocarbon age is converted into calendar age for a sample.
A wood’s time-width depends on the number of tree rings taken for radiocarbon dating.