...this does not mean what you think it means (thanks again, Inigo Montoya).

Yes, there are some inaccuracies being discovered in carbon dating methodoligies, specifically pertaining to the 12C/13C (carbon isotopes) ratio in oceanic sedimentation layers.

No, this does not mean that all carbon dating is bunk. The inaccuracies only begin to apply when what is being analyzed is older than about 150 million years.

Put plainly, open sedimentation layers containing organic material can be found which date back about 150 million years, using the 12C/13C ratio as the principle for determining the age of something. Obviously, because we are dealing here with ratios of radio-isotopes, there will be some variance in the results. One recalls the rather trite assertion made by some Young Earthers that a chicken which died two days previously will register as being 2200 years old according to carbon dating.

That is, of course, a silly assertion for a few reasons, but it should be noted that for a method which can identify things as old as 150 million years, a variance of 2200 years is well within experimentally acceptable error levels (in fact, it's remarkably good: it represents an error of about 0.001467%).

But I digress.

The issue, it seems, is that while the 12C/13C dating method works for stuff dating things going back those first 150 million years, sedimentation layers older than that tend not to have significant 12C/13C ratios (given the nature of radio-isotopes, this doesn't really surprise). In the past, scientists have attempted to use carbonate platforms in lieu of this, but it would seem now that this is not a sound method, based on recent observations.

So: for things dating back no more than 150 million years, 12C/13C carbon dating is the cat's meow. Beyond that point, it's not the cat's meow. Fortunately, there are other dating technologies which step in to cover the gap.

And at any rate, this news certainly doesn't advance the Young Earth cause at all, does it (and it won't, unless someone can conclusively demonstrate that 6000 > 150,000,000).

Exit Question: rebuttal article from the usual suspect...within four hours of the posting time below?

Update: taking it in a bit of a different direction, I see...but amazingly, his timing is still remarkably consistent. Two hours and eleven minutes.