Cosidering Carbon dating cannot accurately date specemin of known age, how can it be trusted to millions?

When living beings/objects are tested with carbon dating they are found to be much older by carbon dating than their known age. (ie. living clam shells dated at 200,000 years old) how then can it be trused to millions of years to date the dinosaurs?

Cosidering Carbon dating cannot accurately date specemin of known age, how can it be trusted to millions?
Usually it's an isotope of uranium or rubidium that's used to date something that is millions of years old. These elements have much longer half-lives than C-14 and take much longer to decay. Often more than one element is used to date an artifact for certainty. In other words, the object will be dated using uranium, then with strontium, and the results checked against each other.





Radiocarbon dating is not accurate for very recent artifacts and anything older than 60,000 years. So, whatever this story is about living clam shells being misdated, it's not surprising nor does it disprove radiometric dating. Variation in carbon levels make it difficult to accurately date a contemporary object. Also, people sometimes state that all radiocarbon dating is wrong because of a few errors, this is misleading since it is very easy to contaminate objects with recent carbon and skew the results.
Reply:It is also interesting to note that many object that are suspected to be millions of years old all contain C14. After 60,000 years it should be all gone. Report It

Reply:It's also interesting to note how desperately stupid creationists are. Report It

Reply:The accuracy of radiocoarbon dating was tested on objects with dates that were already known through historical records such as parts of the dead sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb. Based on the results of the Carbon 14 test the analysis showed that C14 agreed very closely with the historical information.





We can't date things that are too old. After about ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at all. If you hear of a carbon dating up in the millions of years, you're hearing a confused report.
Reply:carbon dating is a bunch of gobbledyguke
Reply:Carbon only has a halflife of about 5000 years, meaning that it's really only good to about 50-60,000 years old. Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon dating is used past that point, and it is NOT the only method of dating used! Very few prestigious scientists would rely solely on radiometric dating at a single site to come up with an estimation for dates.





Living clams that have been "dated" to 200,000 years old are dated that late because the sediment in the shells IS that old, or older. Also, what many Christian "scientists" leave out when they give you that information is that usually those dates are deviations from the average date, or the dating was done by someone who is unfamiliar with the technique.
Reply:Carbon is not used to date things like that. It's half-life is way too short. Check out the question below for an answer about dating methods.
Reply:I don't understand why anyone would attempt carbon dating someone thats still alive. Carbon dating tells you when something died, whilst it is still alive it replenishes its carbon, thus taking in a carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio that is roughly the atmospheric ratio. It is only when an organism dies that it ceases to replenish its carbon, thus it takes in no additional carbon-14.
Reply:Carbon dating is only used for relatively recent specimens; for fossils millions of years old, different radioisotopes are used, such as potassium-40.