OT Aztec Cave Beans

Anyone can 'agree'; that's not a good guide to precision of a measurement, and is, indeed, an invitation to nonsense.

The errors in carbon dating are like those in any measurement tool, but the nutcase pseudoscience community thrives on ridicule, not precision. So, there's no end to nonsense. If you want to see more of it, _Evolution Cruncher_ is a book full of that dreck.

Cydrome Leader managed to snip half what I'd written, without marking the snip

"effects that have to be corrected for, but the propositionthat C-14 forms in the atmosphere when a cosmic ray hits an N-14 nucleus, and decays steadily once it has been captured during photosynthesis and incorporated into wood or other plant products is useful and reliable. "

Nobody that Cydrome Leader can be bothered to read in full - he doesn't seem to have much of an attention span, and his comprehension sucks.

Cydrome Leader likes to keep his thinking simple, by leaving out anything that takes even minimal work to comprehend.

A search of the wiki page for that character string didn't show up anything. Curiously, I could find " a stratified tephra sequence in New Zealand, believed to predate human colonization of the islands, has been dated to 1314 AD ± 12 years by wiggle-matching."

So Cydrome Leader invented the number he wants to decry as random number nonsense. He might not have done it deliberately - I'm happy to assume that he is merely stupid and careless.

Since Cydrome Leader can't even remember the right number, he may actually think that they do change.

You sure take cardon dating personally. You're both hacks.

You are a pretentious half-wit, spreading misinformation about a technique that you don't remotely comprehend.

You don't even qualify as a hack. since you really don't know what you are talking about. You may like to think that the other contributors to this thread are merely hacks, but you have managed to make it perfectly clear that your judgement is entirely worthless.

Is what what your ouija board told you? Are you ready for a polygraph test?

carbon dating is just conjecture and bullshit in practice, based off loose assumption about the state of the atmosphere long ago and other presumptions about how an object was stored and handled.

Even this document basically goes on about we just have to assume lots of stuff, and the dates for groundwater are in the more realistic +/- hundreds to thousands of years. These are numbers that I can sort of subscribe to, not nonsense like +/- 12 year numerology ratings used by others for random objects.

Not so, according to practitioners. I'm thinking you aren't one of those.

Not so; there are tree ring correspondences, for instance, giving data about the past few centuries to check against. Those are measurements, not assumptions.

Presumptions? No, those are called assumptions. You cannot usefully call practitioners presumptuous, but would you have better assumptions to offer? Other than 'ignoramus, et ignoramibus', you seem to have nothing.