Carbon Dating is Suspect.

                                                                  Is carbon dating a theory or fact?

Carbon dating is at best a good theory, and that is all it is, a theory. Too many people forget the definition of a theory. Theory is not fact; it is a hypothesis that is supported by some experimental evidence. There have been many theories in the past that have been disproved.

                                                                  Dinosaur Fossils and Fossilisation

Palaeontologists use fossil evidence preserved in ancient rock to discover how long-extinct animals lived and behaved. In most cases, a fossilised bone is actually an impression in rock made out of minerals, with no trace of the original bone material. This means that the minerals that make up the fossils were produced by the rock and water over a period of time while the actual bones of the dinosaur was disintegrating, so the fossil evidence is based on the age of the surrounding rock not on the actual dinosaur bones, this fact could create a serious problem because it speculates on the actual age of bones that no longer exist where as the rock is much older!

                                             What does this mean for Contemporary Carbon Dating?

Essentially, this means that carbon dating, though a useful tool, is nowhere near 100% reliable. For example, recently science teams at the British Antarctic Survey and Reading University unearthed the discovery that samples of moss could be brought back to life after being frozen in ice. The kicker? That carbon dating deemed the moss to have been frozen for over 1,500 years. Now, if this carbon dating agrees with other evolutionary methods of determining age, the team could have a real discovery on their hands. Taken alone, however, the carbon dating is unreliable at best, and at worst, downright inaccurate.

                                             Why is radioactive dating unreliable in most situations?

The relative contributions of each of those sources of material differ from rock to rock making the dates produced by this technique unreliable. It is only reliable for materials that have a single source of material such as igneous (volcanic) rocks, Even then with fossils you are dating the rocks not the actual bones.

                                                                How accurate is dinosaur dating?

Further, dinosaur bones actually cannot be dated accurately using carbon dating. Simply because they're too old and their carbon would long since have decayed, in simpler terms, the actual bones no longer exist, all you have is a mineral copy of the bones that replaced them  when they disintegrated.

                                                                Why is relative dating unreliable?

There are no temporal (Worldly) limits to relative dating, for the methods are equally applicable to the dating, say, of Proterozoic surfaces (2500 to 532 million years ago) as of those of Pleistocene age (3 to 12 million years ago) . The disadvantage of such methods is that the necessary evidence is frequently either not preserved or not exposed, and no evidence means no proof.

In Conclusion:-   Carbon Dating cannot be relied upon to be accurate, there are to many possible deviations that can provide the wrong date sometimes by over a thousand years and often by Millions of years or even 10s of millions of years, and only partially accurate on Organic material but no good for dating fossils, and other dating techniques can also only approximate the time period not accurately date the tested item, so fossil age is often based of guess work not actual science!

                                   So in conclusion you might say, " Your Guess is as good as Mine?