Carbondating a scam
None of them showed the large brain and ape-like jaw of Piltdown Man; instead, they suggested that jaws and teeth became human-like before a large brain evolved.New dating technology based on fluorine testing emerged in 1939, but the Piltdown remains had been locked away after Dawson’s death in 1916 and were not extensively tested until a decade later.Some organic materials do give radiocarbon ages in excess of 50,000 "radiocarbon years." However, it is important to distinguish between "radiocarbon years" and calendar years.These two measures of time will only be the same if all of the assumptions which go into the conventional radiocarbon dating technique are valid.After a three-year excavation of the Piltdown gravel pit in Sussex, England, Dawson had unearthed human-like skull fragments and a jaw with two teeth, along with a variety of animal fossils and primitive stone tools.Dawson and Woodward announced that one of the skulls and the jaw belonged to a primitive hominid, or human ancestor, who lived some 500,000 to 1 million years ago.Radiocarbon is not used to date the age of rocks or to determine the age of the earth.
One argument even blamed the famed crime writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who lived near Piltdown, claiming that as an ardent spiritualist he wanted to discredit the scientific establishment. Hinton, a volunteer at the museum in 1912 who may have been seeking revenge against Woodward for not giving him a raise.However, the reason for this is understood and the problem is restricted to only a few special cases, of which freshwater clams are the best-known example.It is not correct to state or imply from this evidence that the radiocarbon dating technique is thus shown to be generally invalid.Thus, it is possible (and, given the Flood, probable) that materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years. The shells of live freshwater clams have been radiocarbon dated in excess of 1600 years old, clearly showing that the radiocarbon dating technique is not valid.
The shells of live freshwater clams can, and often do, give anomalous radiocarbon results.
Radiocarbon is not suitable for this purpose because it is only applicable: a) on a time scale of thousands of years and b) to remains of once-living organisms (with minor exceptions, from which rocks are excluded).