A friend of mine and I got into this conversation, and he said his college teachers had this talk about how it is highly inaccurate. I thought this to be silly because if it were highly inaccurate, then why would they even rely on it. I understand that it may be inaccurate under certain circumstances, but I doubt it's highly inaccurate most of the time. If this was the case, scientist wouldn't use it period. For areas that carbon-14 dating is not possible, they normally use the skills of geology and/or the environment surrounding it (like animal bones or plants). If these other methods are considered pretty inaccurate compared to carbon-14 dating, and if they say carbon-14 is inaccurate in itself, that makes the other methods utterly useless to rely on. Some scientists rely on these other methods, especially the paleonanthropologists in South Africa. Can someone please explain?