Radiocarbon dating has the following limitations
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.
On the other hand, it would be misuse, under the creationist system, to attempt to get accurate dates of objects believed to be over say 3000 years old, whereas uniformitarian assumptions would not preclude that.
Attempting to date samples that are supposedly millions of years old is not a "misuse" of the method as claimed.
Radiocarbon dating is frequently used to date ancient human settlements or tools. It is a stable atom that will not change its atomic mass under normal circumstances.
It appears that the researchers approached the matter with considerable professionalism, including taking great pains to eliminate contamination with modern carbon as a source of the C signal in the bones.If an object is really a million plus years old as interpreted by Uniformitarian geology then it should not have any Thank you, Talk Origins for proving the point of the claim.They are once again begging the question since the way to determine if an object is contaminated with "younger" or "older" carbon is by dating it with some other method.Furthermore, it means that both methods are calibrated to each other and so a match of dates between the two methods does not prove that the dates are accurate.Radiocarbon dating provides us with the opportunity to "order time." Determining when something happened based on the age of land formations or artifacts, or figuring out in what order certain events happened, can be crucial to understanding human culture and environmental changes.