In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method.
Talk Origins clearly does not understand that Uniformitarian geology and Flood geology are two totally different theoretical systems.
These include the starting conditions, the constancy of the rate of decay, and that no material has left or entered the sample.
Unlike other radiometric dating techniques where it is not possible to calibrate the method against historically-known dates, limited calibration is possible for carbon dating.
In 2004, after a good period of time tracking down various artifacts that had been reported to have come from Brewers Cave, we (AHRF) were fortunate enough to find ourselves in conversation with the then owner / caretaker of one of the boxes which had come out of Brewer's Cave.
This individual also had the original bark that had been wrapped around the box and sealed with pine pitch.
After some discussion we were granted permission to let one of our archaeologists from the AHRF to remove a small sample from the bark to perform some testing to see if it would be possible to obtain a date for the artifact.
Needless to say, the test results were nothing short of amazing.
Please feel free to direct anyone who may be quoting this information erroneously to this post. According to modern Flood geology there was a rapid increase in This is begging the question, since the only way to know if an object is too old to date by radiocarbon dating is to date it by another method within the same theoretical system. Origins even starts it, given that it is supposed to be a rebuttal to a creationist claim, yet the claim was originally published in a secular journal. Origins has not shown that it is (originally) a creationist claim, yet in its rebuttal criticises "creationists" for supposedly getting the claim wrong. Origins' disagreement is ideological rather than evidence-based. Uniformitarian geology and Flood geology are two totally different theoretical systems of geology, and so the limitations of Radiocarbon dating in one are not necessarily the same as the limitations of the other. Reprinted in Creation Research Society Quarterly 19(2): 117-127 (1982). Origins quotes in blue) This rebuttal is problematic before Talk.An object interpreted as too old for radiocarbon dating by Uniformitarian geology may not be interpreted as too old for radiocarbon dating by Flood geology.In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique.